- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22067 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, SUJATA COMPLEX, P. B. ROAD, HUBLI. - APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR S. ARANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HEMAKSHI @ HEMAVVA, W/O. PARMESH KESARHALLI @ HESARALLI, AGE 27 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. KUMARI. SANGEETA, D/O. PARMESH KESARAHALLI @ HESARALLI, AGE 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. HALAGERI, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. PARAMESH S/O. NINGAPPA HAVERI, AGE MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS & OWNER OF LMV KA25/8141, R/O. KANAVALLI, TQ & DIST. HAVERI. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRUTHVI K. S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. N. P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1)OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 14.07.2011, PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION HAVERI IN WCA/F 53/2009 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench. - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This appeal is filed by the insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 14.07.2011, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri (for short, the ‘Commissioner’) in WCA/F 53/2009. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Commissioner. 2. This appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law. (1) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in awarding the quantum of Rs.3,94,120/- as Workmen’s compensation to the petitioners though the relationship is not proved and denied by the insured? (2) Whether the Commissioner is justified in imposing liability on the appellant though the deceased was not holding the valid and effective driving licence? (3) That the judgment and award passed by the Hon’ble Commissioner is justifiable when the death is not proved due to the alleged accient? - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 (4) Whether the Commissioner was justified in allowing the respondents No.1 and 2 to follow unethical method to wangle an award? 3. I have heard arguments of learned counsel for both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits the following points: (i) Employer disputed that deceased was employee of respondent No.1 and it is not proved by the claimants; (ii) PW1 in her evidence admitted that she was falsely saying that her husband was working as employee with the respondent No.1; (iii) There is no nexus between the injuries sustained in the accident and the death. The death was taken place about 26 days after the alleged accident; (iv) Driver of the offending vehicle, i.e., deceased, had no valid and effective driving licence to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 drive the said class of vehicle and he had been chargesheeted for the said offence. Therefore the respondent No.2-insurer is not liable to indemnify respondent No.1. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that deceased was not at all employee of respondent No.1 and claimants have not proved that he was an employee and death was caused due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Deceased had no valid and effective driving licence and according to the respondent No.1, one Eranna, was the driver of the said vehicle. Therefore the respondent No.1 is not liable to pay compensation. 6. He further submits that Commissioner held that there existed relationship of employer and employee only on the ground that respondent No.1 had not produced any records to prove that he was not his employee. The said finding is erroneous. Therefore he prayed to dismiss the claim petition. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 7. Learned counsel for the claimants [respondents No.1 and 2 herein] submits that in the oral evidence PW1 has stated that death of her husband was caused due to the accident. Her evidence is not properly rebutted. FIR shows that deceased sustained injuries when he was driving the offending vehicle. Post mortem report reveals that he died due to septicemia as a result of head injury. They are sufficient to prove the contentions of the claimants. Since it is a summary trial proceeding there is no need to investigate in detail regarding the said facts. The Commissioner considered these facts and awarded compensation which does not call for interference. 8. Since all the substantial questions of law are interconnected they are taken up together for discussion. 9. It is not in dispute that the said vehicle bearing Reg. No. KA-25-8141 belonging to respondent No.1 met with accident. Though the respondent No.1 denied the said fact of accident in his written statement but in paragraph No. 7 of the written statement he stated that “he - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 purchased the vehicle No. KA-25-8141 on 30.01.2009, one Eranna son of Virupaksha Kolladada was the driver of the said vehicle. The said vehicle met with accident on 30.01.2009 when the said Eranna was driving the said vehicle from Byadagi towards Haveri side. In the said accident, the vehicle was completely damaged. It was not in a condition to repair. Therefore he sold the vehicle.” 10. It is pertinent to note that having disputed the accident in the written statement, the respondent No.1 has not challenged the charge sheet filed against the deceased involving this vehicle. In the written statement there is no explanation how could the deceased was sitting on the steering at the time of accident when he was not engaged as driver? In the absence of proper explanation it is to be believed that the deceased was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. As per Ex.P.1 the accident had taken place around 7.30 p.m. Complaint was lodged around 9.15 p.m., i.e., within a period of about two hours. It is difficult to believe that within a short time claimants - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 could concoct the case and include name of deceased as driver of the vehicle. The said Eranna has not lodged any complaint saying that said vehicle was stolen by any unknown person or the deceased and caused the accident. He was not at all responsible for accident. 11. From the pleadings of respondent No.1, it does not appear that deceased was not an unknown person. Respondent No.1 contended that deceased was addicted to alcohol and that resulted in his death. When he was unaware of the said person how could he comment about the deceased in his the written statement? In view of these reasons it is to be believed that case of the claimants that deceased was working as a Driver with the respondent No.1 and there existed employer and employee relationship. 12. The claimants have not produced medical records for having admitted the deceased in the hospital immediately after the accident or to show injuries sustained by him. The accident had taken place on 30.01.2009 and he - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 appears to have died on 26.02.2009 near Sri Muruga Rajendra Temple. Inquest report produced at Ex.P.3 shows that dead body was identified by his wife, i.e., claimant No.1. She has also stated before the Police that her husband was driving the vehicle No. KA-25-8141. It appears, in the said accident some other persons also sustained injuries. Statement of claimants was recorded by the Police on 26.02.2009 which is at Ex.P.4 wherein she has stated that deceased was serving with respondent No.1 as a Driver and while coming from Byadagi the said vehicle met with accident and he sustained injuries. He had taken treatment at Government Hospital, Haveri. 13. Post mortem report reveals that deceased had sustained head injury and subdural hematoma. In the opinion column it is mentioned that death was due to septicemia with head injury (brain injury) as a result of road traffic accident. The investigating officer, after recording the statement of the witnesses and collecting the materials, filed charge sheet alleging that the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 deceased being the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the said vehicle rashly and negligently and dashed against the tree. Due to the same, few persons including driver sustained injuries. The driver took initial treatment at Government Hospital, Haveri, thereafter, against the medical advise got discharged and he had not taken treatment; as a result of head injury he died on 26.02.2009. These facts undoubtedly prove that deceased was an employee of respondent No.1 and he died due to injuries sustained in that accident. 14. Respondent No.2 contends that deceased was driving the vehicle without having a valid driving licence. FIR was registered against him and since he died due to injury sustained in the accident, abated charge sheet was filed against him for the offences u/S 279, 338 and 304-A IPC and Sec. 3 r/w 181 of M.V. Act. These materials also prima facie establishes to believe that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. The charge sheet itself reveals that he did not follow advise of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 Doctor to take treatment at KIMS, Hubballi. In view of the same, he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimants, this is a summary trial proceedings and there is no need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. PW1 is the wife of deceased. In her evidence she has stated about the death of her husband in the vehicular accident. It appears she is a rustic villager and unaware about the judicial proceedings. Therefore she could not secure documents from the concerned authority pertaining to the treatment taken in the Government Hospital at Haveri and produce before the Court. Only on that ground it cannot be held that there is no nexus between the accident as well as death of the victim. It is true that in the cross examination there is a stray sentence saying that “she is deposing falsely that her husband was employed by respondent No.1” but the said evidence cannot be read in isolation. Consistently she has, even in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 her cross examination, admits that her husband was an employee of respondent No.1. Therefore on the basis of stray sentence entire case made out by the claimants cannot be rejected. 16. As stated above, respondent No.1 is duty bound to explain how could the deceased drive his vehicle without his knowledge and consent, when there is no case made out by the respondent No.1 or the regular driver of the said vehicle that, the said vehicle was stolen by the deceased. In view of the said facts and circumstances the contention of respondents No.1 and 2 is not acceptable. 17. The Tribunal considering the facts and circumstances determined the wages, applied the appropriate factor and taken into account 50% of the said wages/salary and assessed the compensation. It does not call for interference by this Court. 18. The claimants have not produced driving licence of the deceased. On the contrary, it is their evidence that - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 respondent No.1 had taken the said driving licence. In the cross examination of RW1, he denied suggestion that driving licence of deceased was given to him and he has not returned it back to the claimant. However, the Police filed charge sheet against the deceased stating that he had no valid and effective driving licence. Therefore a case was registered against him u/S 3 punishable u/S 181 of M.V. Act. It prima facie shows that deceased had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. Neither the claimants nor respondent No.1 have made any attempt to obtain copy of the driving licence from the concerned RTO. It was the duty of respondent No.1 to ascertain from the deceased as to whether he was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle. It appears, without ascertaining the same, he appointed the deceased as a driver. Therefore respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation. It is the fundamental breach of the conditions of the policy. Therefore under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the question of pay and recovery does not arise. Respondent - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 No.1 is liable to pay compensation. To that extent the impugned order needs to be modified. 19. For the aforesaid discussion, the substantial question of law No.1 is answered in the affirmative, No.2 and 3 in the negative and No.4 partly in the affirmative. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER [i] Appeal is allowed in part; [ii] judgment and award dated 14.07.2011, passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri in WCA/F 53/2009 is modified. [iii] Liability of respondent No.2-insurer to pay compensation is set aside. [iv] Respondent No.1-owner is directed to pay compensation awarded by the Labour Commissioner with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 30 days after the accident till realization. Remaining portion of the order passed by the Labour Commissioner is not disturbed. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6478 MFA No. 22067 of 2012 Whatever amount deposited by the appellant-insurer shall be refunded to it on due acknowledgement. Send back the trial court records along with copy of the judgment. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bvv /ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2