- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131 MFA No. 200171 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200171 OF 2021 (ECA) BETWEEN: BASAREDDY S/O NARSIREDDY CHINNAPPALLI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NOW RESIDING AT MOHD. GOUSE, OLD JEWARGI ROAD, KALABURAGI – 585 102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S MATTA ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD., HOUSE NO.12-11-55, NEAR R.T.O., P.W.D., PVT LIMITED, ARAB MOHALLA, RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 585 401. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SANGAMESHWAR COLONY, KALABURAGI – 585 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2018 PASSED E.C.A. NO.21/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KALABURAGI AND TO GRANT THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,50,000/- AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131 MFA No. 200171 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL JUDGMENT There is a delay of 580 days in filing appeal. I.A.no.1/2021 is filed for its condontation. 2. Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel for appellant submits that appeal was filed by husband of deceased challenging judgment and award dismissing claim application on ground of failure by applicant to establish relationship of employer and employee between deceased and respondent no.1. 3. It was submitted that appellant’s wife Shusheelamma was working as a coolie in lorry bearing registration no. KA- 36/3019 belonging to respondent no.1 on monthly wages of Rs.4,000/- per month and daily bhatta of Rs.50/-. It was submitted that while she was on duty, on 01.04.2002, vehicle was proceeding near Borbonda gate, it met with accident resulting in death of Shusheelamma on spot. On account of loss of dependency, appellant filed application under provisions of Workman Compensation Act. 4. Despite service of notice, respondent no.1- owner/employer, did not appear and was placed ex-parte. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131 MFA No. 200171 of 2021 Respondent no.2-insurer appeared and filed written statement denying age, occupation and income of deceased. It also disputed relationship of employee and employer between deceased and respondent no.1 and about occurrence of accident during course of employment. It contended that as per FIR and charge sheet, deceased, her husband and others were proceeding in lorry to attend Sharanabasaveshwar Jatra, carrying passengers in goods vehicle, in violation of terms and conditions of policy issued by insurer. It also contended that driver of lorry was not holding valid and effective driving license. It however, admitted issuance of policy, its coverage as on date of accident. 5. On said pleadings, Tribunal framed following: Issues 1. Whether the petitioner proves that his wife Shusheelamma died on 01.04.2022 while she was proceeding in a Lorry bearing No.KA-36/3019 during the course of her employment? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation? If so, to what extent? 3. What order or award? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131 MFA No. 200171 of 2021 6. Appellant/applicant examined himself as PW-1 and got marked 4 documents as Ex.P-1 to P4. Respondent did not lead any evidence. 7. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in negative and issue no.2 as not surviving for consideration and issue no.3 led to dismissing claim application. Aggrieved by same, this appeal is filed. 8. Learned counsel for appellant submitted, as owner of insured vehicle was placed ex-parte, claimant had difficulty in establishing relationship of employer and employee. He prayed for one more opportunity to establish relationship by remitting matter back to Tribunal. It was also submitted, since, respondent no.1/owner was custodian of record, he would be under obligation to establish whether assertions made by claimant/applicant about deceased being employee of respondent no.1 were true or false by production of records. Since, respondent no.1 remained ex-parte, adverse inference ought to have drawn. Insofar as delay in filing appeal, it was submitted, appellant was poor agriculturist facing financial difficulty and other hardships. Due to same, appeal could not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131 MFA No. 200171 of 2021 be preferred in time. On above ground, submits that substantial question of law arises for consideration and pledged for admitting and allowing appeal. 9. On other hand, Sri Uday P Honguntikar, learned counsel for insurer would oppose appeal. It was submitted, there was no proper explanation of delay and explanation offered would not constitute reasonable cause. Even on merits, it was submitted that burden to establish relationship of employer and employee would be on applicant and on failure to produce any material to prove said relationship, Tribunal rightly dismissed application. Rejection would therefore be on finding of fact and no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. On above ground, sought for dismissing appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award. 11. From above, since, claimant is in appeal challenging dismissal of claim application, points that would arise for consideration are: “1) Whether appellant has assigned sufficient reason for condonation of delay?” if so:- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131 MFA No. 200171 of 2021 2) Whether award passed by Tribunal suffers from perversity and gives rise to any substantial question of law? Points no.1 and 2: 12. As noted above appeal is belated by 580 days. In affidavit filed in support of application, appellant has rather cryptically stated that appeal could not be filed within limitation period due to financial difficulty and poverty. There is no explanation about not making any efforts to avail legal aid. It is settled legal principle that it is not quantum of delay, but cause that requires to be examined while considering application for condonation of delay and if cause was beyond control of applicant, then application deserved to be considered liberally. Normally, in case of claimants appeal this Court liberally condoned delay denying interest for delayed period. Taking note of fact that, no objections are filed controverting assertions, delay is condoned. 13. It is seen, tribunal framed issues casting burden on claimant/applicant to establish that accident occurred during course of and out of employment. In order to discharge burden applicant examined himself as PW.1. Documents relied on are copy of FIR/Complaint, Post Mortem Examination Report, Motor - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131 MFA No. 200171 of 2021 Vehicle Inspector’s Report and Charge Sheet. It is not explained as to how they would be of no assistance to establish relationship between deceased and owner of lorry. 14. In fact, tribunal observed that police investigation records would indicate that deceased was traveling as unauthorized passenger along with 16 others in lorry to attend Sharana Basaveshwar Jatra. Except above, no other material is placed to establish relationship. Even driver or other co- employees are not examined to discharge burden under issue no.1. Under such circumstances and as material on which applicant relied would run contrary to claim, tribunal proceeded to answer issue no.1 in negative and consequently, dismissed application. Since finding of tribunal is based on proper appreciation of material on record and finding recorded would be one of fact. Therefore, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Accordingly, point no.2 is answered against appellant. Consequently, appeal is dismissed Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ,PSG / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26