- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:773 MFA No. 101135 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101135 OF 2017 (WC) BETWEEN: SRI SHRISHAIL ALLAPPA BELAGALI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIVAPUR (H) VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SANTOSH S.HATTIKATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ISWAR BASAPPA BELAGALI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SHIVAPUR (H) VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 2ND FLOOR, MADIWALE ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, PLEASED TO MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 28.10.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND DESIGNATED AUTHORITY UNDER THE EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT GOKAK AT: GOKAK E.C.A. NO.21/2014 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION 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:773 MFA No. 101135 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) The appeal is filed by the claimant questioning dismissal of claim petition. 2. It is the case of claimant that he was working as workman under the employment of respondent No.1 in the tractor and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-49/T-5769 and on 15.09.2013 at direction of the respondent No.1 while discharging duty as a workman in the said tractor and all of a sudden, the hook of the tractor had fallen on left hand and sustained bodily injuries under the course of employment. Therefore, claim petition was filed under Section 30(1) of Employees Compensation Act, 19241. 3. The Trial Court has dismissed the claim petition on the reason that there is no evidence to prove the relationship of the employer and employee between the respondent No.1 and claimant respectively. 1 ‘the Act’ for short - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:773 MFA No. 101135 of 2017 4. Though, it cannot be expected any documentary evidence regarding proving relationship of employer and employee under the Act, 1924 in village area, but while lodging complaint or admitting to the hospital, if information is given either to the police authorities or to the hospital authorities stating that the injured was working in such and such capacity that would be sufficient to hold that the claimant was working as a workman. But Ex.P-1 is a complaint, in which the claimant has not stated anything that he was working as a labour under the employment of respondent No.1. But the claimant has stated in the complaint that he is an agriculturist and also considering other evidence including medical records, there is no evidence even to prove prima facie that the claimant was working as a workman under the employment of respondent No.1. Therefore, when there is no evidence proving that the claimant was working as workman under the employment of respondent No.1. Then, the trial Court has rightly justified in dismissing the claimant petition, which requires no - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:773 MFA No. 101135 of 2017 interference at the hands of this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 73