- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 (in short the 'Act ) filed by respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer ). The insurer had challenged the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner ) in respect of the death of a driver.
(3.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: The appellant was the owner of the vehicle of which the deceased was employed as a driver. Respondent No. 2 filed a Claim Petition inter-alia stating as follows: Her husband Veeresh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased ) was working as a driver in a truck bearing No. KA 34 1183. He left Siraguppa to go to Gurugunta Amreshwara Temple alongwith certain passengers as per the directions of the present appellant. When the vehicle reached Gurugunta, the deceased went to the pond and while taking bath at a pit, he had slipped and fell down and had drowned and breathed his last. The Claim Petition was filed taking the stand that the death of the deceased had occurred during the course of and within the employment under the appellant. The vehicle was the subject matter of insurance with the insurer and, therefore, it was claimed that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation as the risk of the driver was covered under the policy. The Commissioner, Bellary by his order dated 11.7.2002 allowed the petition and determined the compensation payable at Rs. 2,20,046/- with 12% interest. It was held that the insurer was liable to pay the compensation. Insurer filed an appeal before the High Court. As noted above, the stand taken by both the insurer and the appellant was that there was no connection between the accident causing death of the workman and the vehicle and, therefore, neither the insurer nor the insured had any liability to pay any compensation. The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the insurer holding that there was no casual connection and therefore the insurance company was not liable. Further, the High Court granted the liberty to recover the compensation awarded from the appellant.;