- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3465 MFA No. 21519 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.21519 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: SRI. R. NARASIMHULU S/O. G. RAMULU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, EX-MECHANIC, R/O: BAGATHSINGH NAGAR, BELLARY DISTRICT. …APPELLANT (BY SRI Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGER, M/S. DECCAN MINING SYNDICATE PRIVATE LIMITED, SUMEER MANSION MARTIN ROAD, BELLARY. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRERANA MISAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI RAVINDRA R.MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2011 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN’S COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-I, BELLARY IN WC.NO.169/2009 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3465 MFA No. 21519 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the order dated 17.01.2011 passed in W.C.No.169/2009 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short), seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The occurrence of accident, employment injuries sustained by the claimant and liability fastened on owner/respondent No.1 coverage of insurance are not in dispute in this case. 4. In the present case, from the medical evidence on record it is proved that the claimant had suffered the following injuries: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3465 MFA No. 21519 of 2012 i. Comminuted fracture of shaft of shaft of right femur ii. Comminuted fracture of 1/3rd of left tibia. 5. Upon considering the employment injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant and claim made under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act, the Trial Court has awarded compensation of Rs.1,53,408/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. by fastening liability on respondent No.1/owner to pay compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the insurance policy is Workmens Compensation (General) Insurance Policy and hence the risk of the claimant is covered. However, the Trial Court erroneously ordered that the person who operated the wheel loader did not have driving licence therefore, exonerated the insurance company, which is not correct approach of the Trial Court. Therefore, prays to fasten liability on the Insurance Company/respondent No.2 in view of Ex.R- 2/Workmens Compensation (General) Insurance Policy. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3465 MFA No. 21519 of 2012 7. The Trial Court has granted compensation of Rs.1,53,408/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. by fastening liability on respondent No.1/owner of the wheel loader on the ground that the driver who started the wheel loader is an engineer by profession but did not possess a proper driving licence. Hence, for this reason, the Trial Court has exonerated the Insurance Company and fastened liability on the owner/respondent No.1 to pay compensation. 8. It is not disputed that the workman was working as a wheel loader mechanic under the employment of respondent No.1/owner of the Unit. Accordingly, on 04.06.2009 at 7.00 am, the claimant/appellant has attended his work as per the shift schedule, at that time the wheel loader was got repaired due to airlock. Therefore, a service engineer had come to the spot to repair the wheel loader and while in the process of removing airlock and operating the pump to start the wheel loader, it suddenly started and moved forward. As a result, the appellant/claimant was stuck between the back tyre and the loaded chassis due to which, the claimant has suffered employment injuries to the left leg - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3465 MFA No. 21519 of 2012 and right thigh, this is proved as per the evidence of FIR, charge sheet, complaint, spot panchanama and disability certificate also from the evidence of PW-1/claimant and PW- 2/doctor. 9. Ex.R-2 is Workmens Compensation (General) Insurance Policy, which is covered the risk of mechanic also. The wheel loader is not a motor vehicle, it is an engine in the industry unit. The said wheel loader was got repaired and when it was attended by an service engineer and moved the said wheel loader further, at that time, the claimant was caught between the rear tyre and chasis and sustained grievous injuries as above described. Admittedly, Ex.R-2– Workmens Compensation (General) Insurance Policy is a contract between the employer–respondent No.1 and insurer–respondent No.2. As per this, the risk of mechanic is covered. Therefore, the learned Commissioner has misconstrued the insurance policy and has wrongly come to conclusion that service engineer did not have driving license. The observation made by the learned Commissioner is not correct. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3465 MFA No. 21519 of 2012 10. Therefore, when the claimant has sustained employment injuries out of and in the course of employment and Ex.R2 - Workmen’s Compensation Insurance Policy, covering the risk of mechanic, as the claimant is mechanic by profession, therefore the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Therefore, the liability is fastened on respondent No.2/Insurance Company to pay compensation except interest. Hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation without interest as there is no contract of insurance policy to pay interest. Therefore, the respondent No.1/employer is liable to pay interest for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner is correct. Therefore, there is no need to make interference with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, with these observations, the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner is modified. 12. Hence, I pass the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3465 MFA No. 21519 of 2012 ORDER a) The appeal is allowed in part. b) The judgment and award dated 17.01.2011, passed in W.C No.169/2009, by the Court of Labour Officer & Commissioner for Workman’s Compensation, Sub Division-I, Bellary, is modified in holding that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall pay an lump sum amount awarded by the Tribunal and respondent No.1/employer shall pay accrued interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from 30 days after the date of accident till the date of deposit. c) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3465 MFA No. 21519 of 2012 d) Send a copy of this judgment and award to the Tribunal. e) No order as to costs. f) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA: para 1 to 8 PMP: para 9 to end List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40