- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804 MFA No. 201741 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201741 OF 2019 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 102. (POLICY ISSUING OFFICE CR.BIDAR DOOR NO.8-10-135/1 OPP: NEHRU STADIUM BIDAR) (VIDE POLICY NO.610403311710001529) CODE NO.610403, VALID FROM 16/5/2017 TO 15/05/2018) …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O HANUMANTH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. SRI. HANUMANTH S/O CHANDRAPPA, AGED: 41 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804 MFA No. 201741 of 2019 3. SRI.TUKARAM S/O HANUMANTH AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, 4. MASTER UMESH S/O HANUMANTH AGE: 12 YEARS OCC: STUDENT, (MINOR STUDENT OF 12 YEARS U/G HIS FATHER RESPONDENT NO.2) ALL ARE R/O: H.NO.95, BLOCK NO.5, MAREGEMMANA TEMPLE MANNAKHELLI, TALUK: HUMNABAD, DISTRICT: BIDAR. PIN CODE:585 330. 5. SRI. SAYED RAHAMATHULLAH S/O SYED KALEEMULLA QUADRI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.1-62/13, POST AND VILLAGE BAGDAL, TALUK: BIDAR, PIN CODE NO.585 401. (OWNER OF THE AUTO NO.KA38/2129) …RESPONDENTS (R1, R2 AND R5 ARE SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT; R4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN E.C.A.NO.3/2018 ON THE FILE FO THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804 MFA No. 201741 of 2019 J.M.F.C., BIDAR AT BIDAR, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2019 PASSED IN E.C.A.NO.3/2018 BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BIDAR AT BIDAR. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 20.03.2019 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar (for short, 'Tribunal') in ECA No.3/2018, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel for appellant- insurer submitted that respondent had filed claim application under Section 10 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, stating that Avinash S/o Hanumanth was employed by respondent no.1 as driver in his auto bearing registration no.KA-38/2129 on monthly wages of Rs.15,000/- and while he was on duty on 26.09.2017, it met with accident near Balamma Temple Bridge - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804 MFA No. 201741 of 2019 near Bagdal. In said accident, Avinash sustained grievous injuries and died during treatment. 3. On service of notice, employer and insurer entered appearance and objected claim application denying claim averments. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.2 examined himself as PW.1 and one Anil S/o Gundappa as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to 11. Insurer examined one witness as RW.1 and did not mark any documents. 4. On consideration, Tribunal held relationship of employee, employer and insurer was established between deceased and respondents no.1 and 2, that accident had occurred in course of employment and out of employment and claimants were entitled for compensation. It determined monthly income of deceased @ Rs.7,000/-, his age as 20 years by applying corresponding factor of 224.00 and arrived loss of dependency at Rs.7,84,000/-. It held insurer is liable to pay same along with interest @ 12% per annum from 31.10.2017. Assailing same, this appeal was filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804 MFA No. 201741 of 2019 5. It was submitted, insurer had specifically objected to liability on ground that deceased did not have valid and effective driving license to drive Auto at time of accident and there was no effort on part of claimants to produce driving license, even after application filed for direction to them to produce R.C. book, permit, fitness certificate, tax paid receipt and driving license was allowed. It was submitted, claimants had produced all other documents except driving license. Therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn. As liability is fixed without verifying whether deceased had valid and effective driving license, substantial question of law would arise for consideration. On said grounds, sought for allowing appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused impugned judgment and award. 7. In this appeal by insurer, relationship of employee, employer and insurer between deceased, respondents no.1 and 2, occurrence of accident during course of and out of employment, death of Avinash in said accident and claimants being entitled for compensation are not in dispute. Liability of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804 MFA No. 201741 of 2019 insurer to pay compensation is challenged on ground of deceased not possessing valid and effective driving license. Though, learned counsel for appellant made available for perusal certified copy of application filed by insurer for directing respondent no.1/owner of vehicle to produce driving license of deceased along with other documents and stated that application was allowed, claimant produced all other documents except driving license, it is seen that insurer had not issued any notice to insured for production of driving license. No such notice and proof of its service on insured was got marked by insurer. Without such effort, application for direction was filed directly before Tribunal. Though, same was allowed and claimant did not produce driving license, it is seen that in his deposition, PW-1 stated that deceased was possessing driving license. No admission was elicited about deceased driving vehicle without license. There is no effort on part of insurer to establish said fact. 8. In view of above, Tribunal held insurer liable to pay compensation as issuance of insurance policy and coverage of vehicle as on date of accident were not disputed. Finding of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804 MFA No. 201741 of 2019 Trial Court cannot be said to be contrary to material on record or perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for consideration. Consequently, following order: ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE MSR,NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38 Ct;Vk