- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8116 MFA No. 23713 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23713 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY THE SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPP. RADHIKA TALKIES, RAGHAVENDRACHARI ROAD, BALLARI. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI B. GOVINDREDDY S/O BENAKA REDDY, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER, R/O: TALUR ROAD, DIST: BALLARI. 2. SHRI G. SHIVANNA S/O LINGAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.415, ANDRAL VILLAGE, DIST: BALLARI. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 R2-HELD SUFFICIENT V/O/D 24.06.2025) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(A) OF THE W.C.ACT 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07.06.2012, PASSED IN W.C. NO.34/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELLARY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8116 MFA No. 23713 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30(1)(a) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘Act, 1923’), questioning the judgment and award dated 07.06.2012 passed in W.C No.34/2011 on the file of Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Bellary (for short, ‘Commissioner’). 2. It is the case of the claimant/respondent No.1 herein, that the claimant was working as a cleaner in TATA ACE goods auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-34/9590 under the employment of respondent No.2 and when he was traveling in the said goods auto rickshaw on 16.12.2012 as a cleaner, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the said auto rickshaw, the accident was caused and due to which, the claimant sustained injuries. Therefore, upon claim petition filed, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation fastening - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8116 MFA No. 23713 of 2012 liability on the appellant/insurance company. Questioning the same, the insurance company has preferred the appeal. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant/insurance company that there is no evidence to prove that the claimant was working as an employee as a cleaner in the said goods auto rickshaw under the employment of respondent No.2. Therefore, there was no relationship of employee and employer between the claimant and respondent No.2. Hence, the claim petition is not maintainable but the learned Commissioner has erroneously passed order. Hence, prays to set aside the liability fastened on the insurance company by fixing liability on the owner of the auto rickshaw. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/claimant submitted that the owner and driver have given evidence before the learned Commissioner and deposed that the claimant was working as a cleaner in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8116 MFA No. 23713 of 2012 goods auto rickshaw under the employment of respondent No.2. Therefore, it is proved from the evidence that the claimant was working as a cleaner. Further submitted that, for the nature of work of cleaner, it is highly difficult to secure documentary evidence proving the claimant was working as cleaner. Therefore, the oral evidence is sufficient to prove that the claimant was working as a cleaner. Hence, the learned Commissioner has rightly appreciated this evidence and granted compensation by fastening liability on the insurance company in view of existence of insurance policy. 5. The main reliance of the appellant/insurance company is on the complaint lodged before the police. Complaint is lodged by one Nayakula Veerabhadrappa before the police stating that on 16.12.2010 they came to Rayadurga and after purchasing clothes in order to go to their village were standing near Rayadurga bus stand. At that time, the driver of auto rickshaw had approached them. Therefore, they have boarded the auto rickshaw as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8116 MFA No. 23713 of 2012 a passenger. This complaint is not lodged by the claimant. This complaint is lodged by the third person, who has boarded the auto rickshaw as a passenger. But in the said complaint, it is stated that due to the accident, the claimant suffered injury to head and cheek and therefore, there was bleeding from the right ear. When this being the complaint lodged by third person, this complainant does not know whether the claimant was working as a cleaner or whether he has boarded the auto rickshaw as a passenger. The only thing is proved that the claimant had suffered injuries in the said accident. The complaint is not clear whether the claimant has also boarded the auto rickshaw along with the complainant or whether the claimant was already in the auto rickshaw. Therefore, from the complaint, as argued by the learned counsel for appellant it is not clear whether the claimant has boarded the auto rickshaw as a passenger or not. 6. But in this nature of work of cleaner, it is difficult to make document regarding employment of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8116 MFA No. 23713 of 2012 cleaner. It is highly impossible to get document/record proving any person is working as a cleaner. Therefore, in this regard, the only available evidence is oral evidence deposed before the authority. Here in the present case, the respondent No.2- owner has adduced evidence that the claimant was working as a cleaner under him in the said auto rickshaw. 7. Further, the driver of the auto rickshaw who has caused the accident is examined as PW.3 and also deposed that the claimant was working as a cleaner under the employment of respondent No.2. Therefore, the only available evidence in this regard is oral evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, who are the owner and driver of the said auto rickshaw respectively. Therefore, when considering the case on all its preponderance of probabilities, believing the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 who are the owner and driver of the auto rickshaw, it can be accepted that the claimant was working as a cleaner in the auto rickshaw under the employment of respondent No.2. Therefore, this Court is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8116 MFA No. 23713 of 2012 of the opinion that for employment of cleaner, expecting documentary evidence of appointing person of cleaner is highly impossible. Therefore, accepting the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3, as observed above, this Court believes their evidence and held that the claimant was working as a cleaner in the said auto rickshaw. Hence, in this regard the learned Commissioner is correct in holding that the claimant was a cleaner and accordingly awarded compensation, which needs no interference by this Court. The appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 8. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the learned Commissioner, for disbursement along with TCR. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 35