- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6397 MFA No. 21677 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21677 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN: NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029. REPRESENTED BY IT’S ASSISTANT MANAGER. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. R. MANE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI W/O. SHIVAPPZA BYAHATTI, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 2. KUMARI SANIKA D/O. SHIVAPPA BYAHATTI, AGE 7 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT. 3. KUMAR SHRIDHAR S/O. SHIVAPPA BYAHATTI, AGE 4 YEASR, OCC: STUDENT. 4. SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O. RUDRAPPA BYAHATTI, AGE 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, (RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS, THEY ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.1). Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6397 MFA No. 21677 of 2013 ALL ARE R/O. KURLAGERI, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG. 5. SHRI. RUDRAPPA S/O. SHIVAPPA BYAHATTI, AGE 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KURLAGERI, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(a)(aa) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.02.2013 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION NO.1, BELGAUM, IN WCA/SR NO. 95/2012 AND ETC. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6397 MFA No. 21677 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) Heard arguments of the learned counsel for insurer as well as the claimants. 2. This appeal was admitted on 03.11.2015. However, as on that date no substantial question of law was framed. Therefore, looking to the contentions of the parties the following substantial question of law is framed. Whether the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Labour Commissioner is justified in fastening liability on the insurer even though the employer failed to prove that driver of the offending tractor-trailer was holding valid and effective driving licence? 3. It is the case of the claimants that deceased Shivappa was employed as driver in the tractor and trailer on wages of Rs.6,000/- per month belonging to respondent No.1- Rudrappa, who is the father of deceased. In discharge of his duty and as per the instruction and direction of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6397 MFA No. 21677 of 2013 respondent No.1, deceased was driving the offending tractor and trailer on 14.08.2011 to fill diesel; While returning from petrol pump, deceased drove the tractor- trailer in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which he lost control and met with an accident, sustained fatal head injury, and died on the way to the hospital. The Shivappa was aged 28 years as on the date of accident. Claimants are his wife, children and mother, who were depending upon his earnings. With these reasons prayed to award the compensation. 4. Respondent-insurer denied contents of the claim petition. It also contended that deceased was none other than the son of respondent No.1. Therefore there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent No.1 and the deceased. Only to claim compensation, a story was fabricated stating that deceased was serving as a driver with respondent No.1. It also contended that the said Shivappa was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor. In - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6397 MFA No. 21677 of 2013 view of the said reasons, there is violation of the terms of policy and hence respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. 5. Respondent No.1 admitted contention of the claimants and stated that deceased was working as a Driver in the said tractor, he was paying Rs.5,000/- per month as remuneration to the deceased. He was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor. With these reasons prayed to pass suitable orders. 6. The Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub Division No.1, Belgaum (for short, the ‘Commissioner’) recorded the evidence and by the impugned judgment and held that there existed relationship of employer and employee between deceased and the respondent No.1. The deceased Shivappa died during the course of employment; he was holding valid and effective driving licence, in view of the admission made by the respondent No.1, Commissioner took the income of deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6397 MFA No. 21677 of 2013 applicable factor as 211.79 and awarded compensation by the impugned order. 7. The main grievance of the insurer is that the deceased had no valid and effective driving licence. Neither the claimants nor the respondent No.1 produced driving licence of the said Shivappa before the Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal regarding the driving licence is on the basis of admission of respondent No.1. The said fact is legally not sustainable. Deceased was son and claimants are wife and children of deceased. To fasten liability respondent No.1 must be contending that Shivappa had valid licence. Neither claimants nor respondent No.1-Employer produced driving licence of deceased to prove said facts and there was no hurdle for the claimants to produce the same. Therefore, adverse inference that said Shivappa had no licence to drive the said tractor-trailer, has to be drawn. 8. The claim petition is filed under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act/ Employees Compensation - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6397 MFA No. 21677 of 2013 Act. The claimants are not the third parties but are legal heirs of the deceased employee. It was the duty of respondent No.1 to verify the licence and then engage him as driver even though he was his son. He was paying salary to the deceased according to his own contention. He cannot entrust a vehicle to a person who had no licence to drive the vehicle. It is violation of fundamental terms and conditions of the policy of insurance and hence respondent No.1 himself is liable to pay compensation. He cannot expect that the respondent No.2 shall indemnify him. 9. The aforesaid principle of law is laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar and Ors. reported in (2022) 15 SCC 572. Therefore even in this case respondent No.2 cannot be called upon to pay compensation and recover it from the owner of the vehicle because liability in this case arises out of employment and liability has to be considered under Workmen’s Compensation Act. In view of the said reasons - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6397 MFA No. 21677 of 2013 the respondent No.2-insurer is absolved from its liability to pay compensation. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The judgment and order dated 20.02.2013 passed by the Court of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub Division No.1, Belgaum, in WCA/SR NO. 95/2012 is modified. Respondent No.1 shall pay compensation with interest as ordered by the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. (iii) Respondent No.2-insurer is absolved from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. Petition against it is dismissed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6397 MFA No. 21677 of 2013 Whatever amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant on due acknowledgement. Send back the trial court records with a copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8