- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 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. 21587 OF 2013 (WC-) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KARWAR, REP. BY ASSISTANT MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M K SOUDAGAR, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKA W/O. PARASAPPA NAIK AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O.BOMMANAHALLI, TQ: HALIYAL, DIST: NORTH CANARA. 2. SHRI. ANIL S/O.NARAYAN MANDOLKAR AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT CONTRACTOR, R/O. LENIN ROAD, DANDELI, DIST: NORTH CANARA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1)(a) OF WC ACT 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:12.12.2012 PASSED IN W.C NO.17/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, KARWAR, UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,68,680/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN 30 DAYS 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 MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:24:21 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District, Karwar (‘the Commissioner’ for short) in WCSR No.17/2009. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. On 04.08.2008, the deceased Sri. Parasappa Naik was working as a Coolie in a truck bearing Reg.No.MEH-4897; after loading bamboos in the said truck, near Doginal, the said Parasappa Naik requested the driver of the truck to stop the truck on the side of the road; he went for urination into the bushes. At that time, the said Parasappa Naik was attacked by the wild bears. He sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The accident had occurred during the course of employment. It is contended that, the deceased was - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 working as a Loader and the petitioner being the wife of the deceased, filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923. 3. The owner of the truck did not file a statement of objections. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, the accident had not occurred during the course of employment and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner and it is also contended that, there is no accident to the insured truck and death of the deceased is due to attack of wild bears in the forest. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 4. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 5. The petitioner to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1 and got marked seven documents as Exs.P1 to P7. The Insurance Company examined the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 Development Officer (Administration) and got marked two documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 6. The Commissioner, after hearing both sides and after assessing verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.5,68,680/- with interest. 7. The Insurance Company, aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, filed this appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that, the accident had not occurred due to the accident. He submits that, the incident took place due to attack by the wild bears. Hence, the Commissioner has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company and the death of the deceased has not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 arisen out of employment and during the course of employment and discharging the duties as an alleged Loader on the insured truck. He further submits that, the Commissioner has failed to appreciate the evidence on record properly and committed an error in passing the impugned order. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per Contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the deceased was working as a Loader in the insured truck and the truck was parked by the side of the road and the deceased had gone for urination. At that time, wild bears attacked him and the incident had occurred during the course of employment and the Commissioner was justified in fastening the liability on the owner as well as the Insurance Company. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 Whether the deceased Basappa1, who died on 04.08.2008 is during the course of employment or out of the employment? 12. There is no dispute in regard to the death of the deceased Parasappa Naik who died on 04.08.2008 when he went in the insured truck as a Loader; when the truck was near Doginal forest, the truck was stopped allowing the deceased to go for urination and the deceased was near bamboo bushes; at the time of urination, wild bears attacked him and caused him fatal injuries, as a result he succumbed to the injuries. In order to ascertain whether the accident had occurred out of employment or during the course of employment, it is necessary to examine Section 3(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923: “3. Employer's liability for compensation.- (1) If personal injury is caused to a *[employee] by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: 1 Note: Instead of typing it as ‘Parasappa’, due to inadvertence it is typed as ‘Basappa’ and it may be read as ‘Parasappa’ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 Provided that the employer shall not be so liable -- (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the employee for a period exceeding three days; (b) in respect of any injury, not resulting in death or permanent total disablement caused by an accident which is directly attributable to— (i) the employee having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the employee to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of employees, or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the employee of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of employee, (c) Omitted by Act 5 of 1929.” 12.1. It deals with the employer’s liability for compensation to the employee in the case of accident arising out of and in the course of employment. The words ‘arising out of’ and ‘in the course of his employment’ are in two different phrases and have been understood as such if the accident had occurred on the account of risk, which is an incident of employment, the claim shall succeed unless - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 of course, the workman had exposed himself or added by his own improvement. The phrase ‘in the course of his employment’ justifies that, injury must have been caused during the currency of employment, whereas the expression ‘out of employment’ conveys an idea that, there must be casual connection between the employee and the injury caused to the workman as a result of accident. Prima facie, while deciding the issue on hand, when a workman is on a public road or a public place or on a public transport he is there as any other member of the public and is not there in the course of employment unless the very nature of his employment makes it very necessary for him to be there. In other words, there must be a casual relationship between the accident and the employment. The expression ‘out of employment’ is not confined to the mere nature of employment; the expression applies to the employment, as such to its nature, its condition, its obligation and its incident. The words ‘arising out of’ are understood to mean that during the course of employment, the injury has - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 resulted from some risk incidental to the duties. Unless engaged in the duty owned to the employer, it is reasonable to believe that, workman would not otherwise has suffered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saurashtra Salt Mfg. Co. Vs. Bai Valu Raja and Others2 held as follows: “7. As a rule, the employment of a workman does not commence until he has reached the place of employment and does not continue when he has left the place of employment, the journey to and from the place of employment being excluded. It is now well-settled, however, that this is subject to the theory of notional extension of the employer's premises so as to include an area which the workman passes and repasses in going to and in leaving the actual place of work. There may be some reasonable extension in both time and place and a workman may be regarded as in the course of his employment even though he had not reached or had left his employer's premises. … …” 13. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of Daya Kishan Joshi and Another Vs. Dynemech Systems Private Limited3 in paragraphs No.18 and 19, held as follows: 2 1958 SCC OnLine SC 131 3 (2018) 11 SCC 642 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 “18. From the aforementioned, it is clear that the presence of the deceased on the road in question was incidental to his employment as a sales engineer. As he had to go to Hero Honda Factory to conduct a filter test, he was merely doing what was required of him as an employee. Thus, his accidental death on the way back after completing his work falls squarely within Section 3(1) of the Act. 19. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, it needs to be concluded that the accident arose out of employment inasmuch as the very nature of the employment of the deceased made it necessary for him to be there. … …” 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Param Pal Singh Vs. National Insurance Company and Another4, held that, Applicability – Expression “personal injury caused … by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment” – Scope of Requirement of casual connection between the death of workman and his employment – Fulfilment of – J employed as a truck driver by R – He while driving truck in connection with trade and business of R, felt giddy – So he parked the truck on the side of the road – But immediately thereafter he died. J would have definitely undergone grave strain and stress due to long distance driving (of about 1152 km) which materially contributed to and accelerated his unexpected death – Thus, there existed a casual connection between the death of J and his employment – Said untoward mishap could be 4 (2013) 3 SCC 409 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 described as an accident arising out of and in the course of employment of J with R – Hence, order of Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation holding so and awarding compensation to the adopted son of deceased, held, was proper – Conclusion to the contrary arrived at by High Court, set aside. 15. Admittedly, the incident occurred during the course of employment, since the deceased was on duty and he has gone to urinate during the course of employment. He was attacked by the wild bears and there is a casual connection between the death of the deceased and his employment. Considering the propositions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments, there is no dispute that the deceased was on duty and he has gone to urinate; when he was urinating, wild bears attacked him, he sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The post-mortem report also discloses that, the death was due to attack by the wild bears. The deceased was on duty at the time of incident and the incident occurred during the course of employment. Hence, the contention of the Insurance Company that - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11060 MFA No. 21587 of 2013 the incident occurred out of vehicle and the insurance is not liable to pay the compensation cannot be accepted. Hence, there is no ground to interfere with the award passed by the Commissioner. 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed; ii. Award dated 12.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner in WCSR No.17/2009 is confirmed; iii. The office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit and trial courts records to the Office of the Commissioner, forthwith; iv. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA | CT: BSB | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10