- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6318 MFA No. 100924 of 2018 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 MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100924 OF 2018 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BHARAT BOOK DEPOT BUILDING, STATION ROAD, DHARWAD, NOW AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RAHAMTIBI W/O. NAZEER AHAMED KONNUR, AGE 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, LAKAMANAHALLI, DHARWAD. 2. AYEESHA D/O. NAZEER AHAMED KONNUR, AGE 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, LAKAMANAHALLI, DHARWAD. 3. SHAMSHAD D/O. NAZEER AHAMED KONNUR, AGE 19 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, LAKAMANAHALLI, DHARWAD. 4. THE MANAGER, M/S. SUPRADA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, VINAYAK NAGAR, KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6318 MFA No. 100924 of 2018 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.01.2018 IN E.C.A. NO. 5/2015 PASSED BY THE COURT OF I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT DHARWAD, SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO FASTENING OF LIABILITY AND QUANTUM ON THE APPELLANT HEREIN I.E. RESPONDENT NO. 2 BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) I have heard arguments of the learned Advocates appearing for both sides. This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law. (i) Whether there exist the employer and employee relationship between the deceased with respondent No.1? (ii) Whether the death was caused during the course of employment? (iii) Whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and proper? 2. The above substantial questions of law are taken up together for disposal, since they are interconnected. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6318 MFA No. 100924 of 2018 3. It is the case of the claimants that on 13.11.2014 around 12’O clock Nazeer Ahamad Konnur (deceased) while working in the factory premises of respondent No.1, as per directions of respondent No.1, that is preparing cement blocks, he lost control and fell down and thereby sustained grievous head injury. Immediately after the incident the officers of the respondent No.1 trying to shift him to the Civil Hospital, Dharwad and on the way to the hospital he succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter body was sent to the hospital and postmortem was conducted. Wife of deceased lodged complaint with Vidyagiri Police Station, Dharwad which was registered in UDR Case No. 47/2014 u/S 174 Cr.P.C. It is her further case that deceased was working in the said factory for about three years prior to his death; his age was 44 years, was paid salary of Rs.500/- per day. There exists employer and employee relationship between the respondent No.1 and the deceased. The liability of respondent No.1 is covered under the policy of insurance - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6318 MFA No. 100924 of 2018 with respondent No.2. Therefore both the respondents are liable to pay compensation. With these reasons the claimants, who are the wife and children of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.10 lakhs. 4. Respondent No.1 denied all the contents of the claim petition. It further stated that deceased was not at all an employee working in the factory. The accident was not occurred as stated in the claim petition. In the event the claimants are held to be entitled for compensation, the respondent No.2 be directed to pay the same since it is covered by the policy of insurance. 5. Respondent No.2 also denied contents of the claim petition and further stated that there was no relationship of employee and the employer between deceased and the respondent No.1. Therefore the question of awarding compensation does not arise and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6318 MFA No. 100924 of 2018 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Commissioner framed necessary issues and recorded evidence of both the parties. Claimants examined two witnesses as PW1 and PW2 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. Respondent No.2 is examined as RW1 and marked Ex.R.1. 7. The Commissioner after hearing both the parties and appreciating the pleadings and evidence on record, by the impugned judgment awarded total compensation of Rs.7,27,760/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 13.11.2014 till payment of the said amount. The same is challenged by the insurer on the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued in line with the memorandum of appeal. He further stated that there is no piece of material on record to show that deceased was an employee of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 specifically denied the said relationship. Inspite of that, the Commissioner held that deceased was an employee of respondent No.1 and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6318 MFA No. 100924 of 2018 awarded the compensation. The said finding is erroneous. Therefore he prayed to set aside the said finding. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that deceased was not a permanent employee of the factory and he was a daily wage employee. Respondent No.1 has not produced any register to show now many employees are working in the factory. Mere denial is not sufficient to rebut the claim of the claimants. Even the respondent No.2 did not secure any records from the respondent No.1 to prove the fact that respondent NO.1 has been maintaining any records of its employees or any receipts for payment of salary or wages to the employees working in the factory. Therefore the circumstances corroborate the contention of the claimants that no records are available to prove that deceased was working in the factory of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 did not enter the witness box to disprove the evidence of claimants or rebut the evidence of PW1. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6318 MFA No. 100924 of 2018 10. PW1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the claimants. Both of them have stated about service of deceased in the premises of respondent No.1. In the cross examination they have stated that they have no denied all the documents to show that they were working with the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 did not enter the witness box and depose. RW2 is an officer of the respondent No.2. He may not have any personal knowledge about the names and particulars of the employees working in respondent No.1. Therefore there is no proper rebuttal evidence to the evidence of PW1 and 2. 11. This appeal is u/S 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act. According to the said provision, there is no need to re-assess or re-appreciate the evidence on record. 12. Undisputedly, incident had taken place within the premises of the factory of respondent No.1. Hence respondent No.1 has to explain as to how it allowed a stranger to work in factory premises. Under these - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6318 MFA No. 100924 of 2018 circumstances the evidence of PW1 and 2 is to be believed. 13. Victim died during the course of employment and he sustained grievous head injuries while discharging his duty. Claimants are his wife and children. Hence as per Workmen’s Compensation Act they are entitled for compensation. 14. The quantum of compensation is not disputed by both the parties. The Tribunal on application of proper law and facts assessed the income, deducted 50% of the said income for calculation of the net income, applied proper factors and awarded the compensation. The grounds of appeal are not tenable to accept the contention of the appellant. Therefore the substantial questions of law framed are answered against the appellant-insurer and proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (1) Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits; - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6318 MFA No. 100924 of 2018 (2) The impugned judgment and award dated 19.01.2018 passed in ECA No. 5/2015 by the Addl. Sr. Civil Judge & CJM, Dharwad, is confirmed. Send back the trial court records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10