- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24865 OF 2012 (WC-) BETWEEN: ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ASHOK NAGAR, NIPPANI, THROUGH DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM, REPTD., BY ITS REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI, BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGANAGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. LAKKAVVA W/O MAHADEV RANGANNAVAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 2. KUMAR YALLAPPA MAHADEV RANGANNAVAR, AGE: 6 YEARS, MINOR, REPTD., BY HIS MOTHER M/G RESPONDENT NO. 1. 3. SMT. PARAVVA W/O HALAPPA RANGANNAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.04 11:39:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 ALL ARE R/O: KANCHAKARWADI VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. SRI. HALAPPA S/O YALLAPPA RANGANNAVAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KANCHAKARWADI VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILORS NO. KA-27/T-5205, KA-23/T-5219, 5220) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADV FOR R1 & R3, R2 IS MINOR R/BY R1, SRI. K.H. BAGI, ADV FOR R4) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) THE W.C. ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED:18.09.2012, PASSED IN WCA:SR:NO.:95/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM DISTRICT BELGAUM, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.6,23,940/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act,’ for short) by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 18.09.2012 passed in WCA:SR.No.95/2011 by the Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Sub- Division-I, Belagavi. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 09.12.2009, the deceased Mahadev was driving the Tractor bearing No.KA-27/T-5205, Trailers No.KA-23/T-5219 and 5220. The deceased Mahadev met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The deceased Mahadev died during the course and out of the employment. The petitioners, being the legal representatives of the deceased - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 Mahadev filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act, claiming compensation. 4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that there is no relationship of employer-employee between the owner of the tractor and the deceased Mahadev. It is also contended that the deceased Mahadev was the son of the owner of the tractor, and there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 5. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, petitioner No.2 was examined as P.W.1, and marked 8 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the Insurance Company examined its officer as R.W.1, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 marked 4 documents as R.Ws.1 to 4. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.6,23,940/-. The appellant-Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner in WCA:SR.No.95/2011, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners. 8. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there is no relationship of employer-employee between the owner of the tractor and the deceased Mahadev. He submits that the deceased Mahadev is none other than the son of the owner of the tractor. He submits that the deceased Mahadev was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. The Commissioner did not consider these aspects and proceeded - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 to allow the claim petition. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is arbitrary and erroneous, and contrary to the records. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and dismiss the claim petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that admittedly, the deceased Mahadev was driving the tractor as of the date of the accident. He submits that the accident occurred during the course and out of the employment. He submits that there is no bar for the owner to engage his son as his employee, and there exists a relationship of employer-employee between the deceased Mahadev and the owner of the tractor. He submits that the Commissioner was justified in recording a finding that there exists a relationship of employer-employee between the deceased Mahadev and the owner of the tractor. He submits that the burden is on the Insurance Company to prove that the deceased Mahadev was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. He submits that during the cross- - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 examination of R.W.2 has clearly admitted that the Insurance Company has not made any attempt to ascertain whether the driver of the tractor was possessed a valid and effective driving licence. He submits that the Insurance Company has failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on it. He submits that the Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned judgment and award. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 10. This court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law. 1) Whether the Commissioner acted perversely in holding that the deceased was a workman in the insured vehicle and died during the course and out of employment ignoring the fact that the deceased was the son of the insured and at no point of time he was engaged as a workman in the insured vehicle? 2) Whether the Commissioner acted perversely in allowing the claim petition granting compensation on account of the death of deceased driver without there being any - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 evidence to show that the deceased driver had possessed the valid and effective driving license? Substantial question of law No.1. 11. There is no dispute that the deceased Mahadev was driving the tractor as of the date of the accident. He met with an accident, sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The accident was occurred during the course and out of the employment. The Insurance Company has denied that a relationship of employer-employee exists between the owner of the tractor and the deceased Mahadev. The issue of employer and employee relationship is a pure question of fact. It cannot be raised as a question of law, much less, the substantial question of law, in the wake of some evidence given by the employer. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the tractor, has employed his son as a coolie or a worker, it would be erroneous to hold that there cannot be a employer- employee relationship between the father and a son. There is no prohibition in law for the blood relatives to be the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 employer and employee. The Commissioner considering the evidence on record as rightly held that there exist a relationship of employer-employee between the owner of the tractor and the deceased Mahadev, and he died during the course and out of the employment. The Commissioner has rightly ignored the fact that the deceased was the son of the insured and at no point of time he was engaged as a workman in the insured vehicle. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the negative. Substantial question of law No.2. 12. Though the Insurance Company has taken a specific defence in the statement of objections that the driver of the offending tractor did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident, the burden is on the Insurance Company to establish that the deceased Mahadev was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. The Insurance Company has not examined - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 the RTO to demonstrate that the driver of the offending tractor did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. During the course of cross-examination, R.W.2 has admitted that the Insurance Company has not made any attempt to ascertain whether the driver of the tractor possessed a valid and effective driving licence. The Insurance Company has just pleaded that the driver of the tractor did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, but no evidence was led by the Insurance Company. The Commissioner was justified in recording a finding that the Insurance Company has failed to establish that the deceased Mahadev did not possess a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. The finding recorded by the Commissioner is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.2 in the negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10969 MFA No. 24865 of 2012 ii) The judgment and award dated 18.09.2012 passed in WCA:SR.No.95/2011 by the Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Sub-Division-I, Belagavi, is hereby confirmed. iii) The records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Sub- Division-I, Belagavi, forthwith. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6