- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101964 OF 2017 (WC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MEENAXI W/O. RAMAPPA POL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591227. 2. ARUN S/O. RAMAPPA POL, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591227. 3. ANKIT S/O. RAMAPPA POL, AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591227. 4. ADITYA S/O. RAMAPPA POL, AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591227. THE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER /GUARDIAN I.E. APPELLANT NO.1. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHRIHARSH A.NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 AND: 1. BASALINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA @ SHIDDALINGAPPA PATTANSHETTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: SASALATTI, TQ: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587315. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KATAGI BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, KACHERI ROAD, JAMKHANDI-587301, BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVARAJ MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 31(A) OF THE WORKSMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.10.2016 IN ECA NO.87/2014 (OLD WC NO.127/2012) PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER UNDER EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, BELAGAVI DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION OF THE APPELLANT, IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 18.10.2016 in ECA No.87/2014 (old WC No.127/2012) passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner Under Employees’ Compensation Act, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short) thereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants is dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of claimants that the deceased Ramappa was working as coolie in the tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-29/T-6259 and trailer bearing KA-29/T-4333 respectively, under the ownership of respondent No.1 as sugarcane harvester. On 14.01.2012, the deceased was working as coolie along with coworkers on the land of respondent No.1. While loading sugarcane into the tractor and trailer, the deceased lost his balance and fell down and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 immediately he was shifted to the hospital and diagnosed with degenerative axonal injury to the brain and ultimately died on 09.03.2012. Therefore, his legal heirs (claimants) have filed claim petition under Section 3 r/w Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the WC Act’ for short) that the death of the deceased is out of and in the course of employment. However, the Trial Court has dismissed the claim petition on the grounds that the deceased was not an employee of respondent No.1/employer and there was no nexus between the death and injuries sustained by the deceased; hence, dismissed the claim petition. 4. Heard arguments from both sides and perused the material on records. 5. Upon hearing the parties, the following substantial questions of law would arise for my consideration in this appeal. i. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the claimants prove that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 deceased was working as coolie under the employment of respondent No.1 in his Tractor bearing Reg.No.KA-29/T-6259 and Trailer bearing KA-29/T-4333 as a sugarcane harvester, thus proves relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1/employer and deceased respectively? ii. Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the claimants prove that death of deceased is due to the injuries sustained on 14.01.2012 and developed leading to degenerative axonal injury to the brain resulting to death of the deceased? iii. Whether, the judgment an award passed by the Trial Court requires interference by this Court? 6. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the deceased was working as coolie under the employment of respondent No.1. The deceased was engaged by respondent No.1 as a sugarcane harvester on the land of respondent No.1 and was responsible for loading the sugarcane into the trailor and trailer, which is owned by respondent No.1. Further, admitted that while the deceased was working as a coolie on 14.01.2012, he was harvesting - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 the sugarcane crop and loading the same into the tractor and trailer at that time he lost balance and fell down on the ground. Subsequently, he was diagnosed with degenerative axonal injury to the brain and died due to this injury. Therefore, submitted the relationship of employer and employee is proved. Also the death of the deceased is out of and in the course of employment, under the facts and circumstances as above stated. Therefore, pray to allow the appeal and pay compensation to the claimants. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company submitted that the deceased was not an employee of respondent No.1 but is a labour contractor. He used to receive advances from various farmers, including respondent No.1 and until exoneration of the said advance amount, he used to work on the fields of farmers. Therefore, the deceased was freelance labour contractor and not under the employment of respondent No.1, which was correctly observed by the Trial Court while considering the evidence of PW-1/wife of the deceased. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 8. Further, submitted that the injury sustained by the deceased does not have nexus with the death occurred in the course of employment. Further, it was noted that the deceased has lost his balance on 14.01.2012 and died on 09.03.2012; therefore, the death was not due to employment injuries as it was a natural death. Hence, this fact was considered correctly by the Trial Court and submitted that there is no grounds for causing interference with the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Upon considering the facts and circumstances involved in the case, it is an admitted fact that on 14.01.2012 the deceased was working as coolie on the land of respondent No.1 as sugarcane harvester. While loading the sugarcane to the tractor and trailer belonging to respondent No.1, this fact is not disputed by respondent No.2/insurance company. However, on 14.01.2012, while the deceased was doing as coolie above stated, he lost his balance and fell down on the ground and he was immediately shifted to the hospital and diagnosed with degenerative - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 axonal injury is diseased to the to the brain, resulting from his head forcefully coming into contact with a hard object. 10. The Trial Court found discrepancies in the discharge summary marked as Ex.P-5, nothing that there might be some insertions made with different ink. However, such discrepancies do not discredit the core of the case presented by the claimants. Ex.P-3 is the Post Mortem report, which proves the fact that the deceased died due to degenerative decease of the brain caused by axonal injury. Ex.P-9 is the CT scan report indicates that there may not be intracranial hemorrhage, it proved that the deceased developed ‘Diffuse Axonal Injury’, which is injury to the brain. This injury traces back to the incident on 14.01.2012 when the deceased was working as sugarcane harvester and loading the sugarcane into the tractor and trailer of respondent No.1. 11. Therefore, on 14.01.2012 the deceased was in continuous treatment in various hospitals, but he could not develop normalcy. Due to complications related to the brain, - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 he died. Thus, it is proved that the deceased died out of and in the course of employment. 12. Though, PW-1 admitted in the course of cross- examination that the deceased was working as labour contactor for harvesting sugarcane crops and was receiving advance amount from farmers and also from respondent No.1, the deceased was actually working as coolie for sugarcane harvesting. The deceased might have worked under various farmers, but it is proved that the deceased has also worked under the employment of respondent No.1 for harvesting sugarcane crop as on 14.01.2012. Just because, the deceased has received an advance amount for doing coolie work does not mean that he was not working as an employee under respondent No.1. For various reasons, the coolies may receive amount in advance or normally, after completing the work, receive coolie amount. Here, the deceased received advance amount from respondent No.1 that does not mean that the deceased was not working as employee under respondent No.1. For various constraints, it is normal practice that the coolies may receive coolie amount - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 in advance and for exoneration of the said amount they used to work in the field of the employer. Therefore, just because the coolie amount received in advance does not negate the relationship of employer and employee. Therefore, the Trial Court has much harped upon the advance amount received and came to wrong conclusion that the deceased was not an employee of respondent No.1. Thus, it is proved that as on the date of accident i.e., on 14.01.2012, the deceased was working as coolie on the land of respondent No.1 as sugarcane harvester and loading the sugarcane to the tractor and trailer at that time he lost his balance and fell on the ground and sustained injuries to the brain, which ultimately led to his death on 09.03.2012. Therefore, considering the entire evidence on record, as above discussed upon its re- appreciation, it is proved that the death of the deceased is out of and in the course of employment due to the injuries sustained to the brain while working as sugarcane harvester and loading sugarcane crop to the tractor and trailer. Accordingly, I answer point Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative and the findings given by the Trial Court are perverse in - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 nature. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court is interfered with. Hence, I answer point No.3 also in the affirmative. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed by entertaining claim petition filed by the claimants for claiming compensation. Thus, the claimants entitled compensation. 13. The deceased was 32 years old as on the date of accident. The accident is of the year 2012. Hence, in the absence of proof of income, the wage of Rs.8,000/- p.m. taken into consideration and the deceased was 32 years old at the time of accident therefore, relevant factor applicable is 203.85. Hence, loss of dependency is hereby reassessed and quantified as follows: Rs.8,000/- x 50% x 203.85 = Rs.8,15,400/- 14. The claimants have produced cash receipts at Exs.P-6 and P-7 for having made expenditure of Rs.11,330/- and Rs.3,350/- towards medical and hospitalization charges. Therefore, a compensation of Rs.14,680/- is awarded under the head medical expenses. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 15. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,30,080/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from after 30 days from the date of accident till its realization. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment and award dated 18.10.2016 in ECA No.87/2014 (old WC No.127/2012) passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner Under Employee’s Compensation Act, Belagavi, is hereby set aside. iii) The claim petition in ECA No.87/2014 is allowed in part. iv) The claimants are entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,30,080/- along with - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1906 MFA No. 101964 of 2017 interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from after 30 days from the date of accident till its realization. v) The claimants/appellants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 172 days in filing the appeal. vi) Respondent No.2/Insruance Company shall pay compensation to the claimants within eight weeks from receipt of copy of this judgment. vii) Send back the Trial Court Records along with certified copy of this judgment to the Trial Court. viii) Pending IAs’, if any, do not survive for consideration in view of disposal of the appeal. ix) No order as to costs. x) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 70