- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8491 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN: M/S ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, SHARADA COMPLEX, OPP.KSRTC BUS STAND, CHITRADURGA, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THILUVALLI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, P.B.ROAD, NEAR ARUNA TALKIES, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K.S. LAKSHMINARASAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAVI @ P. RAVI S/O. PEDDANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/O.ALUR, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572 143. 2. R.H. DADAPEER, S/O. HUSSAIN, R/O.RANGENAHALLI, HIRIYUR TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 572 143. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2013 PASSED IN WCA/NF/CR- 93/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.95,079/- WITH INTEREST. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 30 of Workmen Compensation Act challenging the award dated 3rd July 2013, passed in the case No.WCA/NF/CR No.93/2007, on file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner under Workmen Compensation, Act, Chitradurga, (for short “Commissioner”). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Commissioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the claimant was working under respondent No.1 as a loader and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 unloader in a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-16-A-2059 and he was earning a salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m., along with batta of Rs.25/- per day. On 08.02.2006, as per directions of respondent No.1, the claimant was travelling in the said autorickshaw (offending vehicle). He unloaded Arecanuts at Bheemasamudra Market and thereafter, as instructed by driver of the vehicle, he proceeded towards Echalanagenahalli to bring a motorcycle, that was under repair. The driver of said goods auto was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner; due to which it over turned to the left side. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries including a fracture of left ankle joint and other minor injuries. A criminal case was registered against driver of the said vehicle for the said incident. 4. He further contends that due to injuries sustained in the accident, he has suffered disability to an extent of 20%. He was aged about 19 years at the time of accident. The said vehicle was insured with respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 No.2. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 in its written statement denied the contentions of the claimant and it also denied the relationship of claimant and respondent No.1 as employee and employer. It further stated that it is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. From the rival contentions of the parties, the Commissioner framed necessary issues, for its determination. 7. The claimant to prove his case examined two witnesses as PW-1 and PW-2 and marked 7 documents, as per Exs.P-1 to P-7. Respondent No.2/insurer have not led any evidence. 8. After hearing both the parties, the Labour Commissioner by impugned award dated 03.07.2013, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 awarded compensation of Rs.95,079/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% from 27.03.2007 till realisation of the entire amount and directed the respondents to pay the said amount of compensation. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 9. This appeal was admitted to consider following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that respondent No.1/claimant was proceeding in the vehicle as an employee of the insured? 2.Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation is justified in holding that their existed employer and employee relationship between the insured and claimant?" 10. The substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are interconnected. Therefore, they are taken up together for discussion. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant has failed to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship between himself and respondent No.1. If the respondent No.1 remained absent, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 it was the duty of the claimant to examine him as a witness on his behalf to prove the said relationship. Unless said relationship is proved claimant is not entitled for compensation. He further submits that claimant was not an employee of respondent No.1 but a gratuitous passenger in the goods vehicle. These facts could be ascertained from records of a criminal case registered for the accident in question. Hence, claimant is not entitled for compensation. These facts were not properly appreciated by the commissioner. 12. The learned counsel for insurer submits that PW-2, in his evidence, stated the extent of the disability of claimant. However, he had no records to prove that the claimant was suffering from any disability. He had not even seen the documents pertaining to treatment of the claimant. Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 is not reliable. With these reasons, prayed to answer the said substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 13. Learned counsel for the claimant supported the impugned award passed by the Commissioner. He further contended that in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW- 2, nothing was brought out to disbelieve the case of the claimant. The owner of the vehicle neither appeared nor disputed the claim petition. Therefore, insurer has no right to dispute the relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the respondent No.1. With these reasons, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 14. The fact of the accident and involvement of the vehicle are not seriously disputed. But during the course of the argument, in this appeal insurer has disputed it although this point was not raised before the Labour Commissioner. The appellant failed to make out a case that the said autorickshaw was not at all involved in the incident. As per the motor vehicle inspection report, marked as Ex.P-4, the auto was damaged in the incident. Since the said point was not raised before the Labour Commissioner and no cross-examination was made to PW- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 1 in this regard, this point cannot be considered in the present appeal. More over substantial question of law framed by the Court does not involve the said point. Therefore, the said submission is not tenable. 15. PW-1 in his evidence has stated that he was an employee under respondent No.1 and was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- p.m. from respondent No.1. In the cross- examination, apart from a mere denial of the said evidence, nothing was brought on record to show that he was merely a passenger in the goods vehicle. He had filed a case against respondent No.1, claiming compensation and it is difficult to accept that he would examine his own rival party as witness in his favour to prove his case. If respondent No.1 had any grievance regarding the said averments made in the claim petition, he should have appeared before the Court and denied the said fact. 16. The respondent No.2 could have examined him as a witness to establish that there was no their employer- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 employee relationship between them. Hence, there is no rebuttal evidence against evidence of PW-1. 17. Undisputedly, the claimant was travelling in the said vehicle and sustained injuries in the accident. A criminal case was registered in respect of the accident in question. The documents related to the said criminal case have been placed on record, and are relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant. It may be true that, in the complaint as well as in further statement, the claimant stated that his parents loaded areca nuts in the said vehicle that was unloaded in the Bheemasamudra Market. It is not the case of either of the parties that the said vehicle was returning to Hiriyur. On the contrary, the driver of the said vehicle was going towards Echalanagenahally, to transport the said motorcycle that was under repair. If the claimant was not a loader or coolie in the vehicle, there was no reason for the driver to ask him to accompany him to that place. He went to Echalananagenahalli just to load a motorcycle that was - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 under repair. These facts indicate that he was a coolie or loader or unloader of the said vehicle. 18. The investigating officer, after conducting an investigation submitted a charge sheet against the driver of the goods autorickshaw. In that document, it is specifically mentioned that the claimant was a coolie in the said vehicle. Even in Ex.P-5 i.e., wound certificate, the involvement of the goods auto is mentioned, along with injuries sustained by the claimant. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-insurer, that the claimant was a mere passenger in the goods vehicle and not a loader or unloader is not tenable. 19. Although no such contention was raised in the appeal memo or before the Commissioner, during the course of the argument, it was submitted that the compensation awarded was on the higher side and the disability stated by PW-2 was also exaggerated. The said contention is not tenable. PW-2 was cross-examined in detail; he has stated about the disability of claimant. The - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 claimant had sustained fracture of left ankle joint. Considering his age and injury, PW-2 assessed the disability at 20%. 20. Considering the income of claimant and other relevant factors, the Labour Commissioner calculated the compensation and awarded the same. It is very exorbitant is not acceptable; That the claimant met with the accident during the year 2006, had to undergo litigation for about 7 years, and receive an award of merely Rs.95,000/-, but still unable to get the benefits of said award passed by the Commissioner. The insurer, just to avoid its liability to pay the compensation filed this appeal and this appeal is pending for nearly 12 years before this Court. There is no merit in the contentions of the insurer. Therefore, substantial questions of law framed are answered against appellant-insurer. ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23598 MFA No. 8491 of 2013 ii) The award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Chitradurga, dated 03rd July 2013, passed in WCA/NF/CR No.93/2007, is confirmed. iii) Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant-insurer before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Registry is directed to send back the records along with a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9 CT: BHK