- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 224 OF 2014 (WC) BETWEEN: THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY ITS MANAGER, SRI. V. RAMACHANDRAN. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SEETHA RAMA RAO B C.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SANJUDEVI, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, W/O LATE SAMANDER SINGH, 2. SRI. DURGA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O NANDARAM, 3. SMT. ROMALIDEVI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O DURGA SINGH, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.584, 6TH CROSS, MARATHAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 037. Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 4. SRI. SESHARAM CHOWDHURY, MAJOR, S/O CHIMNARAO CHOWDHURY, PROP: M/S BALAJI ELECTRICALS, PARVATHI TALKIES ROAD, CHANNAPATNA TOWN, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT (EMPLOYER OF THE DECEASED) 5. MR. MUSHTAQ AHMED, MAJOR, C/O M/S HAYATH GOLDEN TPT COMPANY, NO.16, SHOPPING COMPLEX, AZADPUR, DELHI-110 033 (OWNER OF LORRY NO.HR.55-G-8389) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.T. GURUDEVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. CHARAN KUMAR K.V., ADVOCATE FOR R4, NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED23.7.2013 PASSED IN WCA/cwcfcr24/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.4,30,560/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A. OUT OF TIME. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL 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 challenging the order dated 23.7.2013 passed by the Workmen's Compensation - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 Commissioner, Ramanagara District, Ramanagara in Case No.WCA:CWC:F:CR:24/2011 (for short 'Labour Commissioner). 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Labour Commissioner. 3. This appeal was admitted on 05.02.2019 to consider the following substantial question of law: 1. Whether the Commissioner was proper in holding that the deceased was workman under the 5th respondent by ignoring the pleadings and evidence of claimants as well as the police records produced by the claimants? 2. Whether the Commissioner acted injudiciously in failing to appreciate the facts obtained vis-à-vis probabilities of the deceased not being a workman under the owner of the lorry living in Delhi?" 4. The brief facts of the case are that, Claimant No.1 is the wife, and Claimant Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased, Samandar Singh. He was working as a loader and unloader of marble stones from a lorry under Respondent No.1. On 10.02.2009, at around 10:00 p.m. in Channapatna - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 town, while unloading marble stones from lorry bearing registration No. HR-55-G-8389 along with others, the marble stones broke and fell on Samandar Singh, resulting in his death at the spot. The claimants contended that the deceased was employed under Respondent No.2, earning Rs.4,000/- per month and receiving a daily batta of Rs.50/-. The claimants were dependent upon the earnings of the deceased. With these reasons, they prayed to award the compensation. 5. Respondent No.1 in his written statement contended that the deceased Samandar Singh was working as a loader and unloader of marble stones from a lorry belonging to Respondent No.2. He admitted the occurrence of the incident and the death of Samandar Singh but denied any employer-employee relationship between himself and the deceased. Hence, he contended that he was not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Respondent No.2 in his written statement admitted that the deceased was working under him as a labourer and that he was engaged in loading and unloading marble stones from the lorry bearing registration No. HR-55-G-8389 at his - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 instruction. He also confirmed that the deceased was being paid Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day as batta. He admitted the incident and further stated that the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3, and therefore, if the claim petition were to be allowed, Respondent No.3 would be liable to pay the compensation. 7. Respondent No.3 in its written statement, denied the contentions of the claimants. While admitting that the vehicle was insured with them, it denied the existence of an employer-employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No.2 and that it is not liable to pay compensation. With these reasons, Respondent No. 3 prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Labour Commissioner framed the necessary issues. 9. The claimants to prove their case, examined PW-1 and marked documents as Exhibits P1 to P6. Respondent No.1 examined one witness as RW-1 but did not produce any documents. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 10. After hearing both parties and considering the evidence on record, the Labour Commissioner held that an employer-employee relationship existed between the deceased and Respondent No.2. The Commissioner accepted the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/-, and further deducted 50% of the said income as per Section 4 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), applied the factor 215.28 by taking the age of the deceased as 26 years, and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,30,560/-. Since the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3, the Labour Commissioner directed Respondent No.3 to pay the said amount along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, as per the impugned award dated 23.07.2013. This award is being challenged in the present appeal. 11. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.4 and 5. There is no representation on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 12. The main grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complaint lodged before the jurisdictional police station stated that the deceased was working under Respondent No.2 to fix tiles in a building constructed by Respondent No.1. The records also reveal that while unloading marble stones from the lorry belonging to Respondent No.2, one of the marble stones broke and fell on the deceased, causing grievous head injuries and resulting in his death on the spot. During the trial, contrary to the pleadings and documents produced by the claimants, Respondent No.2 contended that the deceased was working under Respondent No.1. However, he also stated that an employer-employee relationship existed between himself (Respondent No.2) and the deceased and further contended that the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3, making Respondent No.3 liable to pay compensation. He further contended that the Commissioner blindly accepted the version of Respondent No.2 while ignoring the material evidence and pleadings on record, and wrongly directed Respondent No.3 to pay the compensation. Therefore, the findings of the Labour - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 Commissioner are contrary to law and facts, and prayed to absolve the liability on Respondent No.3 . 13. The learned counsel for Respondent No.5 submitted that both Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in their pleadings, admitted that the deceased was working under Respondent No.2 and also admitted the occurrence of the incident. 14. Respondent No.3, in its written statement, did not seriously dispute that the deceased was working under Respondent No.2. The fact that the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 was also not contested. In view of these admissions by Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Respondent No.3 cannot question the employer-employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No.2. Therefore, Respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for Respondent No.5 -the owner of the lorry relied on the judgment in the case of Divisional Manager, National - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. K. Hanumanthappa and Others1. 15. The learned counsel for Respondent No.4 (i.e., Respondent No.1 before the Labour Commissioner) supported the arguments of the learned counsel for Respondent No.5 and submitted that the deceased was not an employee under Respondent No.1 and therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. 16. The incident and the death of Samandar Singh are not disputed by any of the parties. The main dispute pertains to whether the deceased was working under Respondent No.1 or Respondent No.2. In the pleadings specifically, in Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the claim petition the claimants clearly pleaded that the deceased was working under Respondent No.1 as a loader and unloader of marble. The details of the accident are noted in Paragraphs 4 and 5. Throughout the pleadings, the consistent claim was that the deceased was working under Respondent No.1. Respondent 1 ILR 2016 KAR 4421 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 No.2, in his written statement dated 12.10.2010, contended that the deceased was working under him as a loader and unloader, and that he paid the deceased a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month along with a daily batta of Rs.50/-. Respondent No.1, in his written statement before the Tribunal, contended that the deceased was working under Respondent No.2. Respondent No.3, in its written statement, denied all averments made in the petition and also denied the existence of any employer-employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No.2. In Paragraph 10 of the same written statement, it was contended that the deceased was working under Respondent No.1. 17. Before the Labour Commissioner, the FIR was marked as Exhibit P1. In that document, dated 11.02.2009, it is clearly stated that the deceased was working under Respondent No.1 as a loader and unloader and had come to Channapatna to carry out marble work at the residence of Respondent No.1. Exhibit P4, which includes the spot mahazar and the inquest report of the deceased, also confirms that the deceased was working under Respondent No.1. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 18. The narrative changed only during the course of the trial. It appears that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 colluded with each other to shift the liability onto Respondent No.3. The facts were twisted, and they began contending that the deceased was working under Respondent No.2. Although this version was contrary to the documentary evidence marked before the Labour Commissioner, the Commissioner accepted the new version and concluded that the deceased was an employee of Respondent No.2, the owner of the lorry. Consequently, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were directed to pay the compensation, with Respondent No.3 required to indemnify Respondent No.2. 19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Respondent Nos.1 and 2 colluded to abuse the process of law. This conduct amounts to a breach of the insurance contract between Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Respondent No.2 assumed liability by falsely claiming that the deceased was his employee, solely to shift the burden of compensation onto Respondent No.3 on the ground that the vehicle was insured. In light of these facts, it is appropriate to - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 direct Respondent No.2 to pay the compensation and absolve Respondent No.3 from any liability, as the claim was based on a fraudulent representation. 20. My view is supported by the Division Bench judgment in W.A. No.199/2016 dated 10.12.2020 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sri J. Prasanna Kumar and Another, wherein it was held: "The appellant/Insurance Company has succeeded in establishing that the claim petition is filed by playing fraud. If that is accepted, then the appellant/Insurance Company has to be exonerated from satisfying the compensation. If the rider of the vehicle does not possess license and the claim petition is filed by falsely implicating person possessing license, it is fundamental breach of policy conditions and as such, the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to raise a defence in that regard under Section 149(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act. We are of the view that this is a fit case where the defence raised in the written statement is established and the Insurance Company is entitled to be exonerated from paying the compensation on account of fundamental breach of policy conditions. Therefore finding of the Commissioner needs modification". - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 21. Accordingly, the above said substantial question of law is answered in favour of the appellant and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The award dated 23.07.2013 on the file of the Workmens' Compensation Commissioner, Ramanagara District, in case No.WCA:CWC:F:CR:24/2011 is modified. iii. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the lorry bearing registration No.HR-55-G-8389 is directed to pay the compensation to the claimants along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of 30 days after the accident till the date of realization of the said amount. iv. Respondent No.3 - insurer is absolved from its liability to indemnify respondent No.2. v. Whatever the amount deposited by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant on due identification. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23319 MFA No. 224 of 2014 Send back the records along with the copy of this order to the concerned Labour Commissioner. SD/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE AG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13