- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16740 MFA No. 1579 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1579 OF 2017 (WC) BETWEEN: MANJU S/O HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O LINGADAHALLI HOBLI, KALLATHIPURA POST, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577 228. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATE GOWDA K., ADVOCATE -ABSENT) AND: 1. SRI. H.E. MANJEGOWDA, HOYSALALU ESTATE, JANNAPURA POST, MADIGERE TALUK, CHIKMAGALUR - 577 132. 2. THE MANAGER , M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHIKMAGALUR - 577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 V/O/D 16/01/2025 APPEAL AGAINST R1 STANDS ABATED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 03.12.2016 PASSED IN ECA NO.13/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU, ITINERATE MUDIGERE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16740 MFA No. 1579 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT The present appeal is filed aggrieved by the order passed in E.C.A No.13/2015 dated 03.12.2016 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru & Itinerete, Mudigere, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant/claimant was dismissed on the ground that the employer and employee relationship is not established. 2. When this matter came up on 08.04.2025, there was no representation on behalf of both the parties. The matter was directed to be listed today under the caption 'dismissal'. Today, in the forenoon as well as in the afternoon, there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. Hence, this court is passing the order on the merits of the matter. 3. The Tribunal had observed that as per the investigating report Ex.R.2, respondent No.1 has submitted before the investigating agency of 2nd respondent that the appellant is not at all working in the estate of 1st respondent in the year 2001 but he met with an accident in the month of May 2002. Therefore, absolutely there is no material to accept the oral say of the claimant that he was working under the 1st respondent and on 09.02.2001, he met with an accident. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16740 MFA No. 1579 of 2017 According to the petitioner's case, after the alleged accident, the claimant has been either treated in the government hospitals at Gonibeedu or Mudigere for the injuries sustained by him. In the evidence, the claimant stated that after the incident he has been taken treatment at Mudigere and thereafter he went to Tamil Nadu wherein he has taken treatment from the local doctor. Even to substantiate the said fact, nothing has been placed before the Court. The trial Court has also observed that the claimant has not examined any co-workers to show that he was working under the 1st respondent on 09.02.2001 and the accident is occurred as on the date. The claimant has also not made any attempt to examine the doctor who had treated him at Tamil Nadu. In the absence of any such documents certainly it cannot be accepted that there is any employer and employee relationship between the claimant and the 1st respondent. 4. Further, the Trial Court had also observed that 2nd respondent claimed that the 1st respondent has given a statement before the investigating agency that the claimant is not working with him in the year 2001 and looking at all these facts, the Court had come to the conclusion that the claimant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16740 MFA No. 1579 of 2017 has failed to substantiate his case that he was working with the 1st respondent and during the course of employment such accident has happened and accordingly dismissed the petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that the Trial Court had rightly considered the evidence and rightly passed the order. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company, this Court has perused the material on record. The Trial Court had rightly observed that there is no material to show that there is employer- employee relationship between the claimant and the 1st respondent and the Trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition. Hence, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered order passed by the Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. All I.As. in this appeal shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6