- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9283 MFA No. 21650 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21650 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS PORT & INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ABHISHEK MALI PATIL, HCGP) AND: 1. SMT. ERAMMA W/O LATE DHARMAPPA AGE: 40 YEARS, HOUSEKEEPING R/O: VENKATAPUR, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2. KUMARI. KENCHAMMA D/O DHARMAPPA AGE:16 YEARS (MINOR), 3. KUMAR. RAJA S/O LATE DHARMAPPA AGE: 13 YEARS (MINOR), RESPONDENT NOS.2 & 3 ARE MINORS, REP BY THEIR MINOR GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1. 4. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O GUDDADHA THIMAPPA AGE: 60 YEARS, HOUSEKEEPING (DECEASED MOTHER) ALL ARE R/O: ANEGUNDI, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. 5. SRI. B. VENKATA REDDY S/O RAVI REDDY, AGE: 44 YEARS, VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2025.08.11 16:06:34 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9283 MFA No. 21650 of 2012 OCC: CLASS-I CONTRACTOR, R/O: II.NO.8/2/293/2/A-71, 9TH MAIN ROAD, JUBLI HILLS ROAD, HYDRABAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRIYUTHS. N.B. JODALLI for ARUN L NEELOPANT ADVS FOR R3; R1 & R5 ARE SERVED; APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS ABATED AGAINST R4. [R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REP BY R1]) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE W.C.ACT 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.11.2010, PASSED IN W.C.A NO.151/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,08,004/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and award dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’, for short) in W.C.A. No.151/2009. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9283 MFA No. 21650 of 2012 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Commissioner. The appellant was respondent No.2 and respondent Nos.1 to 4 were claimant Nos.10 to 13 and respondent No.5 was respondent No.1. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: One Dharmappa was working under the civil contractor (class-I) namely Sri. B.Venkata Reddy-respondent No.1. According to the claimants, Dharmappa, who is the husband of claimant No.10, father of claimant Nos.11 and 12 and son of claimant No.13 was earning Rs.200/- per day with bhatta of Rs.50/-. Thus, he was earning a total sum of Rs.4,000/- per month from the contractor. Respondent No.1 had taken the contract of constructing a hanging bridge near Anegundi over the Tungabhadra River. While the contract work was in progress and Dharmappa was engaged in the said work, a part of the hanging bridge, so constructed halfway, collapsed on 22.01.2009 at about 03:30 pm. 30 workers, who were working there sustained grievous injuries, of whom some of them died. Dharmappa is one of those workers who died. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9283 MFA No. 21650 of 2012 The claimants, being the legal representatives of the deceased Dharmappa, filed a claim petition before the Commissioner. The Commissioner allowed the claim petition in part and awarded the compensation of Rs.3,08,004/- with interest. Respondent No.2-appellant, aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner, filed this appeal. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader for the appellant-respondent No.2, and the learned counsel for respondent No.3-claimant. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader fairly concedes and submits that, this appeal may be disposed of in terms of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.21384/2012 and the connected appeals. 6. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned HCGP. 7. Respondent No.1 was entrusted with the work of construction of a hanging bridge near Anegundi over the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9283 MFA No. 21650 of 2012 Tungabhadra River. Half of the construction of the bridge was completed and then it was collapsed. 30 workers sustained grievous injuries in the incident. Out of whom some of them died. Dharmappa was one of the workers of respondent No.1, who died in the said incident, and the claimants are the legal representatives of deceased Dharmappa. They filed a claim petition contending that the deceased was working as a coolie under respondent No.1, i.e., the contractor and was earning Rs.200/- per day with bhatta of Rs.50/-. Thus, Dharmappa was earning Rs.4,000/- per month under respondent No.1. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition in Application No.151/2009 before the Commissioner, which was clubbed along with the other claim petitions of other persons, who died in the said incident. The Commissioner allowed the claim petitions in part and awarded the compensation. In the instant appeal, the Commissioner has awarded the compensation of Rs.3,08,004/-. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9283 MFA No. 21650 of 2012 8. The appellant-respondent No.2 does not dispute the death of Dharmappa in the said incident nor he disputes that he was working as a coolie and earning Rs.4,000/- per month. 9. The Commissioner, after recording the evidence, and based on the verbal and documentary evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs.3,08,004/-. The claimants in the other claim petitions, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, challenged the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner in MFA No.21384/2012 and connected matters. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court has allowed the said appeals vide judgment dated 21.02.2024. 10. The Commissioner has considered the entire evidence on record and rightly awarded the compensation. Hence, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment or any substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9283 MFA No. 21650 of 2012 ORDER The Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and award dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal, in W.C.A. No.151/2009. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending applications if any does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, same are disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB