The Branch Manager, National Insurance, Company Limited, Rep. by its Deputy Manager, B.A. Krishna Murthy Vs. Suresha and Others - Court Judgment

(Prayer: This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed u/s. 30 (1) of WC Act, against the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2007 passed in W.C.No.120/2006 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Raichur, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,66,440/- with interest @ 12% p.a.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed u/s. 30 (1) of WC Act, against the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2007 passed in W.C.No.118/2006 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Raichur, awarding a compensation of Rs.2,20,308/- with interest @ 12% p.a.

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed u/s. 30 (1) of WC Act, against the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2007 passed in W.C.No.119/2006 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Raichur District, Raichur, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,77,050/with interest @ 12% p.a.

This Miscellaneous First appeal is filed u/s. 30 (1) of WC Act, against the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2007 passed in W.C.No.121/2006 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Raichur District, Raichur, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,52,588/with interest @ 12% p.a.)

1. These appeals are by the insurer of a lorry challenging the judgment and awards passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur district, Raichur, mainly on the ground of jurisdiction.

2. As all these appeals are arising out of a common judgment of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur District, Raichur (for short herein after referred to as the `Commissioner, Raichur'), with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, they are heard together and admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law and disposed of by this common judgment:

i) Whether the Commissioner, Raichur, had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions filed by the claimants?

ii) Whether the Commissioner, Raichur, had given notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner, Chitradurga, within whose jurisdiction accident took place and to the State Government concerned as contemplated under the first proviso to Section 21(1) of the Workmen's/Employees Compensation Act before processing the claim petitions?

iii) Whether the finding of the Commissioner, Raichur, on liability, directing the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants is sustainable in law?

iv) Whether quantum of compensation and interest awarded by the Commissioner, Raichur, are in accordance with the provisions of the Workmen's/Employees Compensation Act, 1923?

3. Smt. Preeti Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits, even though the insurer of lorry while filing their statement of objections itself have specifically contended that the claim petitions filed by claimants before the Commissioner, Raichur, are not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, as contemplated under Sec. 21 of the Workmen's/Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (herein after referred to as Act for short), the Commissioner, Raichur, without framing an issue and giving finding to that effect has committed an error in entertaining the claim petitions and awarding compensation.

4. She submits, the finding of the Commissioner, Raichur on liability, in directing the appellant to pay the compensation awarded is not sustainable in law.

5. She alternatively submits, disability taken by the Commissioner for computing loss of earning capacity is contrary to Sec.4(1)(c )(ii) of the Act. Consequently, quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner is on the higher side and therefore, she prays for allowing the appeals filed by the insurer as prayed for.

6. Per contra, Sri. Prakash Yeli, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents “ claimants submits, claimants are residents of the address furnished by them in the cause title of the claim petitions which comes in Raichur District and they ordinarily reside in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur, and therefore the Commissioner, Raichur, was justified in entertaining their claim petitions and awarding compensation. He submits, the owner of the lorry in his statement of objections has admitted that claimants “ Surendra Kumar and Suresh, Durgesh and Anil Babu while working under him as driver and loaders respectively in his lorry, the lorry met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry which came from the opposite direction and they sustained injuries in the course of and out of employment. He submits, the claimants have sustained grievous injuries and doctor has stated claimants 1, 2 and 4 viz. Surendra Kumar, Durgesh and Anil Babu suffered disability of 65% each and claimant No.3 “ Suresh suffered disability of 60%. The Commissioner, Raichur, has rightly taken the said disability while reckoning loss of earning capacity and awarded compensation. As such, there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and awards passed by the Commissioner, Raichur, warranting interference of this Court and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.

7. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties as to whether Commissioner, Raichur, had jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions or not, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 21 of the Act which reads as under:

21. Venue of proceedings and transfer. “ (1) Where any matter under this Act is to be done by or before a Commissioner, the same shall, subject to the provisions of this Act and to any rules made hereunder, be done by or before the Commissioner for the area in which “

(a) the accident took place which resulted in the injury; or

(b) the workman or in case of his death, the dependant claiming the compensation ordinarily resides; or

(c) the employer has his registered office:

Provided that no matter shall be processed before or by a Commissioner, other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, without his giving notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned: ?

Provided further that, where the workman, being the master of a ship or a seaman or the captain or a member of the crew of an aircraft or a workman in a motor vehicle or a company, meets with the accident outside India any such matter may be done by or before a Commissioner for the area in which the owner or agent of the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle resides or carries on business or the registered office of the company is situate, as the case may be.

8. As per the aforesaid provisions of law, claimants in order to maintain their claim petitions before the Commissioner, Raichur, have to satisfy any one of the following contingencies:-

1) the accident in which they sustained injuries has taken place in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur, or

2) they ordinarily reside in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur, or;

3) their employer has his registered office in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur.

9. Admittedly, the accident had taken place at Kunchaganahalli village in Chitraduga District, in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Chitradurga. Therefore, the claimants have to show that either they ordinarily reside in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur or their employer has got registered office in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur. If the claimants satisfy that they ordinarily reside in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur, or their employer has got registered office in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur, the claim petitions filed before the Commissioner, Raichur, are very well maintainable.

10. The amended Section 21 of the Act is specially introduced in the Act by amending Act 30 of 1995 with effect from 15.09.1995 in order to benefit and facilitate claimants. The Statement of Objects and Reasons for the amendment of the Act clearly mention that the amendment has been brought about for benefit of the claimants viz., either the workmen or their dependents. The relevant portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons as extracted in paras 6 and 7 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Morgina Begum and MD, Hanuman Plantation Ltd., reads as under:

It is also proposed to introduce provision for facilitating migrant workmen to file compensation claims before the Commissioners having jurisdiction over the area where they or their dependents ordinarily reside. Provision for transfer of compensation from one Commissioner to another has also been made. ?

7. The idea behind introduction of this amendment is that migrant laborers all over the country often go elsewhere to earn their livelihood. When an accident takes place then in order to facilitate the claimants they may make their claim not necessarily at the place where the accident took place but also at the place where they ordinarily reside. This amendment was introduced in the Act in 1995. This was done with a very laudable object, otherwise it could cause hardship to the claimant to claim compensation under the Act. It is not possible for poor workmen or their dependents who reside in one part of the country and shift from one place to another for their livelihood to necessarily go to the place of the accident for filing a claim petition. It may be very expensive for the claimants to pursue such a claim petition because of the financial and other hardship. It would entail the poor claimant travelling from one place to another for getting compensation. Labour statutes are for the welfare of the workmen. ?

11. But as per the first proviso to Section 21 (1) of the W.C. Act, in the event of workman filing claim petition under Section 10 of the W.C. Act, seeking compensation for the injury sustained by him, or in case of death of workman, his dependent claiming compensation before a Commissioner other than the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area in which the accident took place, such Commissioner before processing the matter or commencing the proceedings shall give a notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner having jurisdiction over the area and the State Government concerned.

12. As per the second proviso to Section 21(1) of the Act where the workman being the master of a ship or a seaman or the captain or a member of the crew of an aircraft or a workman in a motor vehicle or a company, meets with the accident outside India any such matter may be done by or before a Commissioner for the area in which the owner or agent of the ship, aircraft or motor vehicle resides or carries on business or the registered office of the company is situate, as the case may be.

13. In the instant case, admittedly, the accident had taken place at Kunchganahalli village in Chitradurga District. The claimants having filed their claim petitions before the Commissioner, Raichur, have to plead and establish that either they ordinarily reside in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur, or they have to plead and establish their employer i.e. the owner of the lorry has got registered office in an area coming within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Raichur District, Raichur.

14. Unfortunately, the Commissioner, Raichur, in spite of the specific stand taken by the insurer of lorry in their written statement that claim petitions filed by the claimants before him are not maintainable for want of jurisdiction has not framed an issue in this regard nor has held he has got jurisdiction to entertain the claim petitions. In fact, whenever a contention with regard to jurisdiction is raised by an opponent, an issue has to be framed in that regard and it should be treated as a preliminary issue.

15. Further, it is not forthcoming from the impugned judgment as to whether the Commissioner, Raichur, before processing the claim petitions of the claimants, has issued a notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner, Chitradurga, within whose jurisdiction the accident took place and to the State Government as contemplated under the first proviso to Sec.21(1) of the Act. This is because, it is the Commissioner of the area within whose jurisdiction accident takes place, has got jurisdiction to entertain claim petition in the first instance.

16. In the absence of an issue regarding jurisdiction and giving as finding to that effect and in the absence of material regarding issuance of notice by the Commissioner, Raichur, to the Commissioner, Chitradurga, within whose jurisdiction the accident took place, before processing the claim petitions, the impugned judgment and awards passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur, awarding compensation to the claim petition are not sustainable in law and they are liable to be set aside on the aforesaid grounds alone.

17. Substantial questions of law at Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

18. In view of my findings on points No.1 and 2 that judgment and awards passed by the Commissioner are liable to be set aside, therefore it is unnecessary to advert to other substantial questions of law.

19. Now under Government of Karnataka notification No. LD 159 LET 2013 dated 23-01-2014 in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 20 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Central Act 8 of 1923) the Principal/Additional/Senior Civil Judges specified therein have been appointed as `Commissioner for EmployeesCompensationfor the purposes of said section within the areas specified.

20. In view of my findings on points No.1 and 2, it is just and proper to allow these appeals and set aside the judgment and awards passed by the Commissioner and remit the matter to the jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge, Raichur, to frame an issue as to whether claim petitions filed by the claimants before the Commissioner, Raichur District, Raichur, now before the jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge, are maintainable in law and whether the Commissioner, Raichur, had given notice in the manner prescribed by the Central Government to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chitradurga, within whose jurisdiction accident took place and to the State Government before processing the claim petitions. In the event of holding issue No.1 in affirmative and issue No.2 in negative, issue notice to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Chitradurga, now to the Senior Civil Judge, Chitradurga, within whose jurisdiction the accident took place and to the State Government before processing the claim petitions on other issues as already framed by the Commissioner.

Hence, the following:

Appeals are allowed. Judgment and awards dt. 15-03- 2007 passed in W.C.Nos.120/2006, 118/2006, 119/2006 and 121/2006 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur District, Raichur, are set aside.

Matters stand remitted to the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur, to decide the claim petitions afresh in the light of the observations indicated herein above, and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties.

In the event of Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur, is of the opinion, matters do not come within his jurisdiction, he has to make over the same to the jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge, Lingasugur who shall consider and dispose of the claim petitions in the light of the observations indicated herein above and in accordance with law after affording opportunity to the parties.

As the claimants and the insurer were represented before this Court through their respective advocates, they are directed to appear before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raichur, on 11^th November, 2015, without expecting any notice and claimants shall take out notice to their employer/owner of lorry.

Amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellants.

No order as to costs.