- 1 - MFA No.23538/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO. 23538/2012 (WC) BETWEEN THE BRANCH MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BELLARY, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, LEGAL DEPARTMENT, CTS # 472-274, V. A. KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBLI. ... APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. MOULABI W/O. LATE P. YAMANURSAB, AGE 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. MINOR P. RAZABAKSHI S/O. LATE P. YAMANURSAB, AGE 13 YEARS, OCC: NIL. 3. MINOR P. RESHMA D/O. LATE P. YAMANURSAB, AGE 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL. 4. MINOR P. MEHAMOOD S/O. LATE P. YAMANURSAB, AGE 9 YEARS, OCC: NIL, (SINCE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO. 1). ALL ARE R/O. MUNIRABAD, TQ & DIST. KOPPAL. 5. SRI. KAREEMSAB S/O. FAKEERSAB, AGE 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL. 6. SMT. REEMAN BEE W/O. KAREEMSAB, AGE 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O. GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - MFA No.23538/2012 7. SRI. K. MALLIKARJU S/O. RUDRAPPA, AGE 37 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR AND TRAILER, R/O. KMMI, IST CROSS, KARIGANUR VILLAGE, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R1, R5 & R6) R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1; NOTICE TO R7 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WC NO.73/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL AND PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2012, BY ALLOWING THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL WITH COST AND ETC. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 04.03.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and award dated 31.05.2012, passed in W.C. No.73/2010 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal (for short “the Commissioner”) 2. It is the case of claimants that on 23.07.2009 at around 01:00 p.m., the deceased, Yamanursab and others - 3 - MFA No.23538/2012 were engaged by the owner of the offending tractor and trailer to load mines in the tractor and trailer. The driver of the tractor and trailer negligently reversed the offending vehicle, which resulted in the trailer tilting to the left and causing the death of Yamanursab, who was waiting to load mine. 3. The claimants contend that the deceased was aged about 38 years and that they were dependent on his earnings for their livelihood. Due to his untimely death, they have been suffering emotional and financial hardship. Accordingly, they have prayed for an award of compensation in the sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. 4. The owner of the vehicle did not appear before the Commissioner. Respondent No.2, the insurer, denied the averments made in the claim petition. It also denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship between deceased Yamanursab and respondent No.1. Further, it was stated that the driver of tractor and trailer did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. It was contended that - 4 - MFA No.23538/2012 the vehicle in question was an agricultural vehicle and was insured under an Agricultural Tractor Package Policy. However, as per the available records, the vehicle was being used for transporting mine, thereby being used for commercial purpose, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of policy of insurance. Therefore, respondent No.2, the insurer, contends that it is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. The Commissioner conducted a trial, recorded the evidence of both parties; based on the materials available on record, held that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of *Rs.3,41,208/-, as per the impudent judgement. 6. The said judgment has been challenged by the appellant in the present appeal. This appeal has been admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether the Labour Commissioner is justified in fastening of the liability to pay the * Corrected vide Court Order dated 25.04.2025 Sd/- (UMBAJ) - 5 - MFA No.23538/2012 compensation inspite of the offending Tractor and trailer was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle? (ii) Whether the Labour Commissioner is justified in fastening of the liability on the insurer when the said tractor was used for commercial purpose for transporting of mine in violation of policy condition? (iii) Whether the Labour Commissioner is justified in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,600/- per month? (iv) What order? 7. Heard the arguments of the learned advocates appearing for both parties. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the driver of the tractor and trailer was not holding a valid and effective driving license. Respondent No.1 ought to have produced the said license before the Commissioner; however, he remained absent. Even the claimant failed to produce the same. Despite this, - 6 - MFA No.23538/2012 the Commissioner erroneously held that the driver possessed a valid and effective driving license. He further submitted that there was no employer-employee relationship between deceased Yamanursab and respondent No.1, and that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the trailer of the tractor. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay compensation. It was also argued that the tractor and trailer were an agricultural vehicles, insured under an Agricultural Package Policy. At the time of accident, they were being used to transport mine in the trailer, thereby being used as commercial vehicles. This constituted a violation of the terms and conditions of policy of insurance. Hence, respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify respondent No.1. For these reasons, the learned counsel prayed that the appeal be allowed and the order passed by the Commissioner be set aside. 9. Learned Counsel for the claimants submitted that the driver of the tractor and trailer was holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive said class of vehicle, - 7 - MFA No.23538/2012 and that he was not charge-sheeted for an offense under Section 3 read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 10. It is the specific contention of the insurer that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license. However, the insurer failed to produce the driving license of the driver of the tractor. Therefore, the onus was on the insurer to produce the said licence, and having failed to do so, an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the insurer. It is further contended that the claimants in their evidence, have stated that the deceased was employed as a loader in the said tractor and trailer under respondent No.1. There is no material on record to discredit their evidence and respondent No.1 has not denied this assertion. Accordingly, the insurer cannot dispute these facts. It is also contended that the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.2, and the policy was in force at the time of the accident and it was a commercial package policy. Hence, respondent No 2 is liable to - 8 - MFA No.23538/2012 indemnify the owner of the vehicle and pay the compensation. 11. Learned counsel further vehemently contended that the present appeal is filed under Section 30 of the Workman’s Compensation Act, and under the said provision, this Court cannot re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Commissioner. This jurisdiction of this Court is confined to the consideration of substantial questions of law. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant pertains primarily to factual aspects, which cannot be reconsidered in the present appeal. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal with costs. 12. Undisputedly, with respect to substantial question No.1, it is the vehement contention of the insurer that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license. The owner of the vehicle did not appear before the Commissioner. On perusal of file sent by the Commissioner, a Xerox copy of a notice issued - 9 - MFA No.23538/2012 by the Police is available, which indicates that the driver, by name Timmappa @ Huchappa son of Iranna was holding a driving license, and the license number was also mentioned in the said notice issued by the concerned police station. 13. Respondent No. 2, apart from a mere denial of the said fact, made no efforts to ascertain whether the said license was issued to the driver of the tractor and trailer, or whether it was valid and in force as on the date of the accident. Therefore, a mere denial is not sufficient. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, the burden lay on the insurer to either produce the driving license or obtain and produce an endorsement from the competent authority showing that the said driver did not hold a valid and effective driving license at the relevant time. Further, it is relevant to note that the driver of the offending vehicle was not charge-sheeted for an offence punishable under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 14. In view of the above reasons and upon consideration of the facts, the Commissioner rightly held - 10 - MFA No.23538/2012 that the driver of the tractor-cum-trailer was holding a valid and effective driving license. Therefore, substantial question No.1 is answered against the insurer. 15. With respect to substantial question No.2, respondent No.2 seeks to disclaim its liability contending that the tractor and trailer were used for a commercial purpose, although the owner had obtained an ‘agriculture vehicle package policy’. The Commissioner did not specifically address this contention. It is pertinent to note that the insurer did not produce an authenticated copy of the policy of insurance. When disputing the scope of coverage under the insurance policy, it was essential for the insurer to produce the original or certified copy of policy of insurance to establish that the coverage did not extend to the death or bodily injury of an employee of respondent No.1. 16. However, a xerox copy of Policy of Insurance is available in the Commissioner's Office records, which indicates that the policy was a Commercial Package Policy. - 11 - MFA No.23538/2012 When this was brought to the attention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant, he was unable to respond stating that the document was a Xerox copy. The insurer, without producing necessary document which is in its possession denying its reliability on the ground of violation of terms of the injury. For the sake of avoiding liability that it is contending that the policy was limited to the agricultural use and did not cover commercial activity. This contention is not tenable. Accordingly, the above said substantial question of law is answered against the appellant – insurer. 17. With respect of substantial question of law No.3, this is, in fact, not a question of law, but a question of fact. The Commissioner assessed the materials available on record and held that the claimants had not produced sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Consequently, relying on the Minimum Wages Act, he assessed the income of deceased at Rs.3,600/-. I find no reason to interfere with these - 12 - MFA No.23538/2012 findings. Therefore, aforesaid substantial question No.3 is answered in the affirmative. 18. The provision for payment of compensation is benevolent legislation. When an insurer receives a premium and insures a vehicle, it should consider claims on humanitarian grounds, alongside adhering to the terms and conditions of policy, and endeavour to pay the compensation. The claimants, who lost the family’s breadwinner in 2009, have yet to receive compensation due to the pendency of the appeal. Based on the aforementioned discussions answered all the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant and pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 31.05.2012, passed in W.C. No.73/2010 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for - 13 - MFA No.23538/2012 Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal is confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Commissioner for disbursement. (iv) The Registry is directed to send back the TCR along with a copy of this judgment to the Labour Commissioner. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE Vnp* / CT-AN List No.: Sl No.: 45