- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2456 MFA No. 24888 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24888 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY DY. MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI ARUNA R.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI LAKAPPA BHIMAPPA GUDAD, AGE: 23 YEARS, R/O: SAVSUDDHI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI, NOW AT LAKSHMI GALLI, KAKATI, BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI MALGOUD LAKGOUD PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: SAVSUDDHI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.G. GADGOLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-STANDS DISMISSED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30 (1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.08.2013 PASSED IN W.C.SR.04/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION II, BELAGAVI BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2456 MFA No. 24888 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though the matter is listed for admission, but with consent of both the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the order dated 26.08.2013 passed in W.C.SR.No.04/2011 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division II, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short), on the grounds that the claimant was not an employee under the employment of respondent No.1 and the claimant was traveling as a gratuitous passenger. Therefore, there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and respondent No.1. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2456 MFA No. 24888 of 2013 4. It is stated that the claimant was working as coolie under the employment of respondent No.1/employer for loading and unloading the sugarcane crop in the tractor and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-23/TA-4061, 4062 & 4063. Therefore, on 24.08.2009 after loading the sugarcane crop in the tractor and trailer, they were going from Savasuddi to Renuka Sugar Factory. At that time, due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer by the driver, the claimant had suffered injuries. Consequently, on account of employment injuries sustained out of and in the course of employment, the claimant has filed claim petition. Accordingly, the Trial Court has granted compensation of Rs.1,31,970/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing till its realization. 5. It is argued that the claimant was not an employee under the employment of respondent No.1 in the tractor and trailer and was not working as coolie. Therefore, at the time of the accident, the claimant was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2456 MFA No. 24888 of 2013 6. Ex.P-1 is the FIR, Ex.P-2 is the complaint and Ex.P-5 is the charge sheet, which prove the fact that the claimant, after loading the sugarcane crop on the tractor and trailer, was proceeding to Savasuddi to Renuka Sugar Factory when the accident occurred. Under these circumstances, it cannot be expected that there would be documentary evidence to prove that the work of the claimant as coolie. However, soon after the accident an undisputed fact of time, the complaint was lodged stating that the claimant was working as coolie under the employment of respondent No.1 and that on his instructions, after loading sugarcane crop into the tractor and trailer, the accident was caused while they were going to Renuka Sugar Factory. 7. These facts in the Police documents prove the fact that the claimant was working as coolie under the employment of respondent No.1/owner of tractor and trailer. Therefore, Trial Court is correct in its findings regarding this matter and accordingly granted compensation, which is found to be justified and correct. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2456 MFA No. 24888 of 2013 8. Further, the Trial Court has taken monthly wages at Rs.4,000/- and has determined the relevant factor 219.95. The claimant was 23 years old at the time of accident and considering the disability at 20%, a compensation of Rs.1,31,970/- has been awarded under the head loss of earning capacity due to disability. This determination is made on correct parameters. Therefore, there is no error found in the order and award passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 10. Amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Trial Court. 11. Registry is directed to return the TCR along with certified copy of this judgment to the concerned Court. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43