- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA M.F.A. NO. 22982/2012, C/W. M.F.A. NO.20303/2011, M.F.A. NO.20304/2011, M.F.A. NO.20305/2011, M.F.A. NO.22985/2012 AND M.F.A. NO.22986/2012 (WC) IN M.F.A. NO. 22982/2012 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, T.P. HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. SUREKHA BHIMARAI WAJANTRI, AGE 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O.BASSAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. KUMARI. SHOBHA BHIMARAI WAJANTRI, AGE 11 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. BASSAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DIST: BELGAUM. (SINCE THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1) 3. THE MANAGER, GOKAK DAIRY PRODUCT PVT. LTD, NEAR WSF SCHOOL, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2012 IN WC/SR NO.68/2010 ON THE FILE OF LABOR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM AND ETC. IN M.F.A. NO. 20303/2011 BETWEEN THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, REP. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, T.P. HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. RAMACHANDRA LAKKAPPA KHANGAR, AGE 47 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KAITNAL VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. 2. THE MANAGER, GOKAK DAIRY PRODUCT PVT. LTD., NEAR WSF SCHOOL, GOKAK DIST. BELGAUM. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.09.2010 IN WC/SR NO.77/2008 ON THE FILE OF LABOR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM AND ETC. IN M.F.A. NO. 20304/2011 BETWEEN THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, REP. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, T.P. HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 - APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. BHEEMAPPA SANNLAXMAN @ SANNALAXMAPPA CHAVANAPPAGOL, AGE 33 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KASITNAL VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. 2. THE MANAGER, THE GOKAK DAIRY PRODUCE PVT. LTD., NEW WSF SCHOOL, GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.09.2010 IN WC/SR NO.76/2008 ON THE FILE OF LABOR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM AND ETC. IN M.F.A. NO. 20305/2011 BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, REP. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, T.P. HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580029. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. SIDDAPPA RANGAPPA @ RAYAPPA GUDDAKAYU, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KAITNAL VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. 2. THE MANAGER, THE GOKAK DAIRY PRODUCE PVT. LTD., NEAR WSF SCHOOL, GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. - RESPONDENTS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 (BY SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.09.2010 IN WC/SR NO.75/2008 ON THE FILE OF LABOR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM AND ETC. IN M.F.A. NO. 22985 OF 2012 BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, REP. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, T.P. HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET,HUBLI-580029. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. BASSAPPA DYAMAPPA KILLEDAR, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. KAITHNAL VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK. 2. THE MANAGER, GOKAK DAIRY PRODUCT PVT. LTD., NEAR WSF SCHOOL, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2012 IN WC/SR NO.71/2010 ON THE FILE OF LABOR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM AND ETC. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 IN M.F.A. NO. 22986 OF 2012 BETWEEN THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CLUB ROAD BELGAUM. REPRESENTED BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, T.P. HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET,HUBLI-580029 - APPELLANT (BY SRI. G. N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SMT. DURGAVVA SIDDLINGAPPA BANGER, AGE 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK. 2. SRI. YAMANAPPA SIDDLINGAPPA BANGER, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL. 3. SRI. LAKKAPPA SIDDLINGAPPA BANGER, AGE 22 YEARS, OCC: NIL, ALL ARE R/O. KAITHNAL VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. THE MANAGER, GOKAK DAIRY PRODUCT PVT. LTD, NEAR WSF SCHOOL, GOKAK, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAUM. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADV. FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.03.2012 IN WC/SR NO.70/2010 ON THE FILE OF LABOR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM AND ETC. THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 03.04.2025 FOR JUDGMENT AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. All these appeals are filed by the respondent No.2-insurer challenging the award passed by the Labour Commissioner and the Commissioner appointed under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘Labour Commissioner’) in Case Nos.75/2008, 76/2008 and 77/2008 dated 06.09.2010 and award passed in W.C.Nos.68/2010, 70/2010 and 71/2010 decided on 13.03.2012. 2. The Labour Commissioner decided these six cases in two groups. First group is of the year 2008 i.e., Case Nos.75/2008, 76/2008 and 77/2008. These three cases are disposed off by common award dated 06.09.2010 and W.C. Case Nos.68/2010, 70/2010 and 71/2010 were decided by common judgment and award dated 13.03.2012. All these six cases arise out of common accident dated 07.06.2006. Therefore all these appeals are taken up together for disposal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 3. Parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Labour Commissioner. 4. These appeals are admitted to consider following substantial questions of law. i. Whether the Labour Commissioner is justified in holding that there exists relationship of employer and employee between claimants and deceased Siddappa Banger as well as Bhimarao Vajantri with respondent No.1 and during the course of employment the incident had taken place? ii. Whether the Labour Commissioner is justified in holding that death of Bhimarai Vajantri and Siddappa Banger was due to injury sustained in the accident? 5. Above two questions are substantial questions of fact as well as law, which needs to be considered and other questions of law formulated in the appeal memos, which is framed by the Court are on facts. Under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act this Court shall only decide substantial questions of law. Therefore, other questions were not taken up for consideration, since they are question of facts. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 6. Brief facts of the case are that; the claimants in M.F.A. No. 20305/2011 (W.C. S.R. No. 75/2008), M.F.A. No. 20304/2011 (W.C. S.R. No. 76/2008), M.F.A. No. 20303/2011 (W.C. S.R. No. 77/2008), deceased Bhimarai Vajanti (his legal heir filed W.C. S.R. No. 68/2010) and Siddappa Banger (his legal heirs filed W.C. S.R. No. 70/2010) and claimant in M.F.A. No. 22985/2012 (W.C. No. 71/2010) were employees of respondent No.1. They were working as a coolie on daily wages as loaders and un-loaders of milk supplied to respondent No.1. They were collecting milk from different milk vendors in and around the villages situated near Gokak and unloading the same to the Dairy of respondent No.1, situated at Gokak. All the claimants are contending that injured claimants as well as the deceased were getting monthly salary of Rs.4,500/- for doing the said work. To discharge the said duties, they were travelling in the milk tempo belonging to respondent No.1. They were residing in different villages and respondent No.1 used to send the said tempo to collect - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 them and thereafter they used to collect the milk. It was their usual work. 7. On an unfortunate day, that is, on 07.06.2006 as usual the injured as well as the deceased Siddappa Banger and Bhimarai Vajantri boarded on the milk tempo bearing registration No.KA-49/181 (for short, “offending vehicle”) belonging to respondent No.1, in discharge of their duties as coolies, to collect the milk. The driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. At the place of accident, the driver lost control over his vehicle and dashed against a pedestrian lady causing injury to her, and thereafter the vehicle capsized. As a result of which injured claimants as well as deceased Siddappa Banger and Bhimarai Vajantri sustained grievous injuries. The injured as well as the deceased took treatment in different hospitals. It is further contended that Siddappa Banger as well as Bhimarai Vajantri had taken treatment as inpatient for longer period i.e., about 25 to 26 days and it is also contended that as a - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 result of injury, Bhimarai died on 03.12.2006 and Siddappa Banger died on 08.07.2006. The said injured claimants, legal heirs of Bhimarai as well as Siddappa filed above stated claim petitions, before the Labour Commissioner claiming compensation. 8. Respondent No.1/owner appeared before the Labour Commissioner and admitted that the injured as well as deceased were coolies working in the said Dairy and their services were taken for collecting the milk from different villages situated nearby the Dairy and unload it in the Dairy. But it disputed the wages said to be paid to them by the respondent No.1, and also they disputed other facts and prayed for dismissal of the case. It is further contended that in the event of awarding the compensation respondent No.2 be directed to pay the same since said vehicle is insured with Respondent No.2. 9. Respondent No.2 in the written statement denied the contentions of claimants and it has contended that the claimants as well as deceased were gratuitous - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. There risk is not covered under the policy of insurance. According to the permit, only one driver and two coolies could travel in the side vehicle. Therefore there is violation of the permit condition. Its liability is restricted to terms and conditions of policy of insurance. It has also specifically stated that the claimants as well as deceased were not employees of respondent No.1 and there is no relationship of employer and employee between them. It has also contended that death of Siddappa Banger as well as Bhimarai Vajantri was not due to injury sustained in the accident, it might be a natural death. Therefore it is not liable to pay the compensation. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the petitions. 10. Both the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed separate written statements in each claim petitions more or less with the same contentions, as stated above. 11. The Labour Commissioner framed necessary points for determination and recorded the evidence of - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 claimants as well as the respondent No.2-Insurer. The claimants as well as the respondent No.2 produced documentary evidence in support of their contentions. The Labour Commissioner appreciating the materials placed on record held that there existed relationship of employer and employee between claimants, deceased Bhimarai and Siddappa with the respondent No.1 and during the course of employment, incident had taken place and they sustained injuries. It is also held that death of Bhimarai as well as Siddappa caused due to injury sustained in the accident. The Labour Commissioner has also assessed age of the claimants as well as the deceased, assessed their wages as Rs.3,500/- per month, assessed disability on the basis of evidence of two Doctors who were examined by the claimants and awarded compensation in two batch of cases dated 06.09.2010 and 13.03.2012. 12. Heard the arguments of both the sides. 13. The learned counsel for appellant-insurer vehemently contends that the claimants as well as - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 deceased are gratuitous passengers, travelling in the said vehicle and they are not employees. There was no relationship of employer and employee between claimants and deceased with the respondent No.1. Statements of injured and complaint given by Bhimarai indicates that there were passengers in the goods vehicle and they boarded the said tempo at different places, to go to work as daily wage coolies. Therefore the Labour Commissioner has committed error in holding that they were employees of respondent No.1. 14. Appellant further contended that there is no nexus between death of Bhimarai and Siddalingappa and injuries sustained in the accident. Both had sustained minor injuries and not fatal injuries, which may not lead to death in a normal circumstance. These facts were not considered by the Labour Commissioner and admittedly the death of both were not reported to the police and charge sheet was not filed against the driver of the tempo for causing the death of the said two persons and no post- - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 mortem report was conducted after death of both the persons. Admittedly, both of them died nearly about a month and six months from the date of accident. Therefore findings of the Commissioner that there was proximity between death of both Bhimarai and Siddappa are incorrect. He further submits that the assessment of disability and assessment of income of the claimants as well as deceased are not proper and there is no basis to ascertain the same. Therefore the said finding is on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. Hence interference in the said findings is required. 15. The learned counsel for claimants have contended that on the basis of materials available on record, the Labour Commissioner gave the findings on the points for determination and no error was committed by him. Admittedly, the said Bhimarai and Siddalingappa sustained grievous injuries. The doctor who treated them was examined and he has stated that both of them were treated as inpatient nearly for 25 to 26 days in his - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 hospital. If both had sustained simple injuries, there was no need for them to admit and treat as inpatient. The legal heirs examined in both the cases, have supported their contentions and both of them are rustic, illiterate villagers. They may not know procedure of law and hence they did not inform the death to the police or conducted the post- mortem. That cannot be the reason for denying their claim petition. Therefore the contention of the appellants in all these cases is not tenable, and hence prayed to dismiss the appeals. Substantial question of law No.1: 16. The main dispute by the insurer is there was no relationship of employer and employee between claimants and deceased with respondent No.1. Mainly the insurer relies on contents of complaint as well as the statements of some of the victims of the incident and contends that they were going in the said lorry to attend their coolie work in different places and it does not disclose that they were employees of respondent No.1. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 On reading of the statements i.e., the complaint given by deceased Bhimarai and statements of injured claimants, which are marked in the respective cases, it clearly shows that they were working as coolies on daily wage basis with the respondent No.1. Their duty was to collect milk from the milk vendors of nearby villages and unload it to the Dairy. Instead of stating in detail the name of respondent No.1, they have mentioned that ‘Yes Milk Dairy, Gokak’. 17. Admittedly, the injured as well as the deceased were rustic villagers and illiterates. In their usual terminology, they used certain words to refer to the injuries. All of them were under shock and pain of injuries, and they gave statement that they were working as a daily wage employee in the Dairy. In such circumstances, only on the basis of the statement made by them that they are working as a coolie and travelling in the said lorry, cannot be considered that they are not employees of respondent No.1. Moreover, respondent No.1 itself has accepted that - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 they were employees working in the Dairy. Merely respondent No.1 did not produce the records to show that they were employees, cannot be ground to disbelieve the statements of the injured, who were examined before the Court on oath and in their cross-examination nothing was brought out to show that they were lying before the Labour Commissioner. 18. In addition to that, some suggestions were made as if it is accepted by the insurer that they were employees of respondent No.1. These facts were discussed in detail by the Labour Commissioner and came to right conclusion that there was relationship of employer and employee between claimants and deceased with respondent No.1. 19. Claimants have stated in the claim petition that on that day, they were going in the said lorry to reach Gokak. Thereafter collect the milk from different milk vendors residing in the villages and unload it to the dairy. This fact is also not denied by respondent No.1. Therefore - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 denial of the said fact by Insurer is not of much consequence. A criminal case was registered against driver of the offending tempo. The police investigated the case and submitted the charge sheet which is not in dispute. It is specifically mentioned that the said vehicle was belonging to respondent No.1 Dairy, which is also not disputed by the respondent No.2 and on the basis of the said facts, the Labour Commissioner held that in discharge of their duties they were travelling in the said lorry and the said lorry met with an accident due to negligence of its driver. Therefore, answered the said points accordingly. 20. I do not find any error in the said findings. Therefore, the substantial question of law No.1 framed above is answered in the negative and against the Insurer. Substantial question of law No.2: 21. According to case of claimants in W.C. S.R. No. 68/2010 (M.F.A. No. 22982/2012) said Bhimarai died due to injury sustained in the accident on 03.12.2006 and - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 Siddalingappa in W.C. S.R. No.70/2010 (M.F.A. No. 22986/2012) was said to be died on 08.07.2006. Wife of deceased Bhimrai and wife of Siddalingappa deposed before the Labour Commissioner that death was caused due to injury sustained in the incident. In their cross- examination, the suggestions made by the respondent No.2 denied. They admitted that they have not reported the fact of death to police and post mortem also not conducted after death of Bhimarai as well as Siddalingappa. It was the suggestion of the Insurer that both of them died a natural death and they denied the said suggestions. 22. Bhimarai sustained fractures of facial bones and Siddalingappa sustained fractures of ribs as well as clavicle. From the evidence of witness Dr.Raj Kumar Koppa, wherein both deceased had taken treatment as inpatient, for nearly 25 to 26 days. Looking to the injuries sustained by them as mentioned in the wound certificate, it was not required to admit them and treat them for 25 - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 days. It appears there must be some complications in their heath and therefore they were treated as inpatient in the hospital. 23. It appears either they were not treated properly or the concerned doctor was unable to diagnose the other injuries which might be sustained by the deceased. Dr. Raj Kumar in his statement stated that he advised them to take treatment in the District Hospital at Belagavi. However he had no idea whether they had taken treatment or not. The claimants have not produced any records regarding the said treatment. Undisputedly both the deceased were breadwinner of the family and they had wife and minor children. It also appears that there were no earning members. Both of them were admitted as inpatient in Private Hospital for treatment for longer period of 25 to 26 days. It appears that their savings were exhausted and they were unable to get any income because of which they could not provide better and additional treatment to the injured. Siddalingappa died - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 within a period of a month and Bhimarai died within a period of 5 to 6 months. Bhimarai and Siddalingappa were said to be aged 40 years at the time of accident. Both of them were said to be hail and healthy. Undisputedly both were said to be working as coolie. Looking to their age, it does not appear that it was a natural death. In the cross- examination of the wife of Bhimarai as well as Siddalingappa, it was not brought out that by they were suffering from any grave deceases. Under these circumstances it is to be believed that both of them died due to injuries sustained in the accident. While dealing with such cases wherein claimants are illiterate, rustic villagers some assumption and presumption has to be made and there may not be direct evidence to prove the facts. Therefore merely the widow of both deceased did not inform to police or they did not arrange to conduct the post mortem, after the death of Bhimarai and Siddalingappa cannot be reason to suspect that they died natural death or they died for different reasons. The lorry was capsized and all of them fell down from the lorry or - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 thrown out of the lorry. Under such circumstances it appears that they must have sustained some internal injury to vital part of body and that must have resulted in the death of the persons. 24. Employees’ Compensation Act is a benevolent legislation. It is enacted to provide immediate compensation to the victims of an incident or provide financial assistance to the legal heirs or dependents of deceased employees, or who died in an accident or unfortunate event during the course of his employment and it is a summary trial proceeding, to be conducted before the Labour Commissioner. Under these circumstances it cannot be expected that a fact pleaded by the victims has to be proved beyond all reasons doubt. The standard of proof required to prove a fact in case registered under the Employees’ Compensation Act cannot be equated with the standard of proof required in civil cases or criminal cases registered by the police. The Labour Commissioner on the basis of available material - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 held that there was nexus between the death and accident. For the above said discussion, the said point also does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly the point No.2 is answered in the negative. 25. The Labour Commissioner assessed disability on the basis of evidence of doctors examined by the claimants, assessed wages of claimants as per the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. Both qre questions of facts. Under Section 30 of Employees’ Compensation Act, this Court cannot re-appreciate evidence and give finding on facts. The substantial questions formulated by the insurer in the respective appeal memos cannot be considered as substantial questions of law. Therefore the other substantial question of law framed are not really the substantial question of law and hence there is no need to answer them. 26. For the above said discussions, I pass following order: - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7009 MFA No. 22982/2012 C/W 20303/2011 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 AND MFA No. 22986/2012 ORDER i. Above appeals in M.F.A. No. 22982/2012, 20303/2011, 20304/2011, 20305/2011, 22985/2012 and 22986/2012 filed by the insurer are dismissed. ii. Award passed by the Labour Commissioner in Case Nos.75/2008, 76/2008 and 77/2008 dated 06.09.2010 and award passed in W.C. Nos. 68/2010, 70/2010 and 71/2010 dated 13.03.2012. iii. Send back TCR along with copy of this order to the Labour Commissioner. If any amount is deposited by the appellant before this Court, same be transferred to the office of Labour Commissioner for disbursement to the claimants. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE BVV /CT-AN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1