- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3101 MFA No. 101842 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101842 OF 2018 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1732, 1ST FLOOR, RAMDEV GALLI, BELAGAVI, REP. BY DULY CONSTITUTED AUTHORITY. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. REKHA W/O. ASHOK SIDDANNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GANAPAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590016. 2. SHRI. ARUN S/O. ASHOK SIDDANNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, R/O: GANAPAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590016. 3. SMT. SHEELA D/O. ASHOK SIDDANNAVAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: GANAPAT GALLI, BELAGAVI-590016. 4. THE PROPRIETOR, THE NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY, SHOP NO.1, WELFARE AND RESETTLEMENT BOARD, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3101 MFA No. 101842 of 2018 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, SHREE BASAVESHWAR CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., SHIVABASAV NAGAR BRANCH, BELAGAVI-590001. 6. SHRI. ASHOK KALLAPPA PATIL, THE PROPRIETOR OF AKSHATA WATER SERVICE COMPANY LTD., SHOP NO.1 SAINIK WELFARE AND RESETTLEMENT BOARD, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SIR ASHOK A.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4; NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 ARE SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 02.01.2018, PASSED IN ECA.NO.261/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, BELAGAVI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEF’S, AS THIS COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3101 MFA No. 101842 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 02.01.2018, passed in ECA No.261/2014, by the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge & Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation Act (for short, ‘Commissioner’) questioning the liability fastened on it. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 3. The deceased Sri.Ashok Ishwarappa Siddannavar (for short, ‘deceased’) was working as security guard under the proprietorship of respondents No.4 and 6, who were arraigned as respondents No.1 and 3 before the Commissioner. On 22.06.2009 deceased died out of and in the course of employment, is not in dispute. The only dispute is regarding whether respondents No.4 and 6 have made coverage of insurance policy for the death of deceased according to the nature of work and risk of workman. Though - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3101 MFA No. 101842 of 2018 respondent No.4 disputed the deceased was employee under him, but it is proved from evidence on record that as it is correctly held by the Commissioner that the proprietor of both firms of respondents No.4 and 6 are one and the same. The very same proprietor i.e., Sri.Ashok Kallappa Patil is running two firms under his proprietorship. The respondent No.4 is the National Security Agency and Akshata Water Service Company Ltd., providing manpower of security guard to various establishments, as it is proved from the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and also the documentary evidence Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. The respondent No.2 has given evidence through RW.3 that respondent No.4 has provided manpower of security guard to respondent No.5/Bank by assigning the deceased to work as a security guard. Though respondent No.4 has denied the deceased was working under him as a security guard, but respondent No.6 has admitted that both respondents No.4 and 6 are under the same proprietorship of Sri.Ashok Kallappa Patil. From the evidence of respondent No.5/Bank, it is also proved that deceased was sent to bank as a security guard. On 22.06.2009, at about 4.00 p.m., - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3101 MFA No. 101842 of 2018 when the deceased was on duty as a security guard at respondent No.5/bank, he felt illness and then by taking permission from respondent No.5/bank, he returned to his home on bicycle. When he came near Darmanath circle, at Sadashiv Nagar, Belagavi, he fell down from bicycle and sustained injuries to vital parts of the body and died on the spot. Therefore, the death of deceased is proved to be out of and in the course of employment. But the only contention taken by the Insurance Company is that respondents No.4 and 6 have purchased insurance policies as per Ex.R3 and Ex.R4, but those policies are not covering the risk of workman, who was working as security guard. As per Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 – insurance policies, respondents No.4 and 6 have purchased insurance policies for covering risk of workmen who are doing work under water resources, operations and repairing dams/tunnels, plumbing work at various places. Therefore workmen who are doing work in the water resources, operations and repairing dams/tunnels and plumbing work at various places are covered by insurance policy. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3101 MFA No. 101842 of 2018 4. The workmen working under the nature of security guard are not covered under Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 – insurance policies. Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 – insurance policies are in the nature of contract of business between the appellant/Insurance Company and respondents No.4 and 6. But as per Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 – insurance policies, workmen who are working in the nature of security guard, are not covered. The respondents No.4 and 6 have purchased insurance policies in respect of workmen those who are carrying out the work under water resources, operations and repairing dams/tunnels and plumbing work at various places. 5. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant is right in his contention that for the nature of work of deceased as a security guard, insurance policy is not covered. But in the present case, it is proved that respondents No.4 and 6 have assigned the deceased with a duty to work as security guard at respondent No.5/Bank and is also proved from the evidence of respondent No.5/Bank. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the respondents No.4 and 6 in the absence of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3101 MFA No. 101842 of 2018 insurance coverage in this regard. Therefore, one Sri.Ashok Kallappa Patil, who is the proprietor of both respondents No.4 and 6, alone is liable to pay compensation to the claimants by exonerating the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimants, since the respondents No.4 and 6 are proved to be the employer of deceased and death of deceased is out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 6. Hence I pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed. b) The judgment and award dated 02.01.2018, passed in ECA No.261/2014, by the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge & Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation Act is modified by directing the respondents No.4 and 6 to pay compensation to the claimants. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3101 MFA No. 101842 of 2018 c) The respondents No.4 and 6 are directed to deposit the said compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from today before the learned Commissioner. d) The liability fastened on the insurance company is setaside. e) The amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance Company shall be refunded to the appellant. f) No order as to cost. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58