- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3473 MFA No. 22641 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22641 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGAL COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, STATION ROAD, HUBLI, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI S.S. KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHADEVAPPA KALLAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: NANDGAD, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. SRI. KALLAPPA N.BHAVAKAR, AGED: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NANDGAD, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING NO.KA-22/A-0119) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KUSHAL BOLMAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WC ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2013 PASSED IN WCA:SR: NO.89/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELAGAVI EXAMINE THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3473 MFA No. 22641 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the judgment and award dated 16.05.2013 passed by the Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Sub-Division-I, Belgaum in W.C.A/SR No.89/2012, on the ground that there is no employer and employee relationship between claimant and respondent No.2-who is the owner of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A- 0119. 2. The learned Commissioner has awarded compensation by holding that there was relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.2 and the claimant/respondent No.1 and accordingly, awarded compensation. 3. Ex.P-1 is the complaint lodged by the claimant himself stating that on 08.06.2012 at 7.00 a.m., he was working under the employment of one Arjun Kesarkar. Therefore, as usual he was doing coolie work and for on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3473 MFA No. 22641 of 2013 08.06.2012 at about 7.00 a.m., the claimant was loading lorry with sand at the instruction of his employer Arjun Kesarkar along with other coolie workers in the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-0119 and at that time he sustained employment injuries. But here, the employer is shown as respondent No.2-Kallappa N. Bhavakar, whereas, in the complaint and FIR i.e.,Exs.P-1 and P-2, the claimant himself has stated that he was working under the employment of one Arjun Kesarkar as a coolie for loading sand in the lorry. Therefore, in the complaint and FIR, the claimant has unequivocally admitted that he was an employee under the employment of one Arjun Kesarkar for loading sand to the lorry but not under respondent No.2- Kallappa N. Bhavakar. 4. In the complaint, the claimant has not stated that he was working as a coolie under the employment of respondent No.2- Kallappa N. Bhavakar. Therefore, just because respondent No.2 is owner of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-22/A-0119 is not a ground to prove that this - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3473 MFA No. 22641 of 2013 Kallappa-respondent No.2 was the employer of the claimant. The claimant has also stated in the evidence that he has admitted that he was working as a coolie to load sand in lorry under the employment of one Arjun Kesarkar. 5. When this being the evidence, from the material on record it is proved that respondent No.2 is not the employer of the claimant but one Arjun Kesarkar is employer of the claimant. Therefore, there is no employer and employee relationship proved between the claimant and respondent No.2. Hence, the claim petition is not maintainable and in this regard, the learned Commissioner has not appreciated evidence on record correctly. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner. 6. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3473 MFA No. 22641 of 2013 ORDER i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 16.05.2013, passed by the Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Sub-Division-I, Belgaum, in W.C.A/SR No.89/2012, is hereby set aside. iii. Amount in deposit shall be refunded to the appellant Insurance Company. iv. No order as to costs. v. Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46