CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Dr. B. Radhakrishna vs Smt. Gouramma and others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 19 January 2000 · Citation: (2001) ACJ 594 : (2000) 85 FLR 388 : (2000) ILR (Kar) 1017 : (2000) 2 KarLJ 571 : (2000) 2 KCCR 888 : (2000) 2 LLJ 182

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.K. Sangalad, J
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneouos First Appeal No. 2035 of 1995
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 393 words
1.

Heard Mr. Latur, learned Counsel for the appellant.

2.

On 30-1-1990, the appellant was constructing a residential building at Site No. 337, 12th Cross, II Block, R.T. Nagar, Bangalore. He had given contract to carry out the tile polishing work for the entire house to respondent 3 who had employed the deceased to carry out the polishing work by machine. The machine which was brought by the deceased as per the direction of respondent 3 was out of order. As such, the deceased died due to electric shock. Hence, the L.R. of the deceased filed WCA FC CR No. 22 of 1990 before the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, Division No. 2, VISL Building, Bangalore City. After hearing the case, the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner, has passed the judgment and award for a sum of Rs. 71,498-28 against the respondent 3 and the appellant apportioning the compensation equally.

3.

Mr. Latur, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the direction that the appellant also responsible to pay 50% of the compensation cannot sustain in the eye of law in view of the decisions namely in case of Skantabai v Sahadeo and Others, and in case of Bharath Earth Movers Limited v Bhagyamma (deceased) by L.R. and Another. The first decision is of the Bombay High Court and second decision is of this Court.

4.

Unless it is shown that the appellant is principal employer, he cannot be saddled with any liability. To fasten the liability, two things are required namely that there was contract and he was principal employer. In the case on hand, of course the appellant had given contract not for the purpose for which he was carrying the trade. These two decisions make it clear that the appellant is not responsible to pay any compensation. Hence, it goes without saying that the direction of the Commissioner that the appellant is also responsible to the extent of 50% cannot sustain. This portion of the order is set aside. Hence, the following order.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, the portion of the order that the appellant is also responsible to the extent of 50% is set aside. The respondent 3 is also further directed to make good of this compensation to the respondents 1 and 2. The amount that has been in deposit by the appellant shall be refunded to him.