- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10315 MFA No. 103426 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103426 OF 2016 (WC) BETWEEN: SHRI. HANMANTAPPA @ HANAMANT S/O. FAKKIRAPPA @ MAGADI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: SHIRAHATTI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG, NOW AT: HEGGERI MARUTI NAGAR, HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.M.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. SHRI. SHANKARAGOUD S/O. SHIDDAPPA TALAGADI, AGE ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG, (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING 407 LORRY NO:KA-26, 9203)-282101. 2. MOULAHUSEN MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.30 12:08:40 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10315 MFA No. 103426 of 2016 S/O. DEVALASAB BETAGERI, AGE ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: NAGARALLI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG. 3. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KALABURGI MANTION, 4TH MAHADI LYMINGATON ROAD, HUBBALLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. S.K.KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.07.2016 PASSED IN ECA NO.82/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 22 OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10315 MFA No. 103426 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’, for short) by the petitioner, challenging the judgment and award dated 19.07.2016 passed in E.C.A.No.82/2014 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’, for short). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 3. The petitioner was working as a coolie under the owner of the vehicle, viz., Shankaragouda/respondent No.1, who owned a Tata 407 light goods vehicle bearing registration No.KA-26/9203. The petitioner was getting Rs.400/- per day as wages and Rs.150/- per day as batta. On 13.01.2012, the driver lost control over the said vehicle, which resulted the vehicle toppling over the right side of the road. Due to the impact, the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10315 MFA No. 103426 of 2016 sustained injuries and filed a claim petition under Section 22(2) of the workmen compensation Act. 4. The trial Court issued the notice to the respondents. Despite service of notice, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained unrepresented and they were placed exparte. 5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that no relationship of employer and employee existed between the owner of the offending vehicle and the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorised passenger. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. 6. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10315 MFA No. 103426 of 2016 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW-2 and marked 24 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-24. The official of the respondent-insurance company was examined as RW-1 and marked 5 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-5. 8. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove that there exist an employer-employee relationship. The petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.1-owner of the offending vehicle and the learned counsel for respondent No.2- insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the notice was issued to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, they remained unrepresented and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10315 MFA No. 103426 of 2016 placed exparte. He submits that if a reasonable opportunity is granted, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle may participate in the proceedings before the trial Court. He submits that the petitioner has suffered disability, and the accident occurred during the course of employment. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the matter may be remanded to the trial Court. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent- insurance company submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference of this Court. Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent-owner of the offending vehicle submits that if a reasonable opportunity is provided, the owner of the offending vehicle will file a statement of objections before the trial Court. Hence, he prayed to remand the matter to the trial Court. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10315 MFA No. 103426 of 2016 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 14. The following substantial question of law would arise for consideration. “Whether the Commissioner has committed an error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the owner of the offending vehicle?” without any basis? 15. Admittedly, there is no dispute that the petitioner met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries. Though, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle were made as parties and notices were issued to them, they remained unrepresented and placed exparte. It is for the owner to contend whether the petitioner was working under him in the offending vehicle. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle did not appear before the trial Court. Hence, the petitioner failed to prove the relationship of the employer and employee, between him and respondent No.1. As rightly pointed out - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10315 MFA No. 103426 of 2016 by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the owner of the offending vehicle, a reasonable opportunity is to be provided to respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle, to contest whether the petitioner was employed under him, Hence, the matter requires reconsideration by the trial Court. 16. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 19.07.2016 passed in E.C.A.No.82/2014 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hubballi, is set aside and E.C.A.No.82/2014 is restored to its original file. (iii) Respondents No.1 and 2/the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, are permitted to file a statement of objections, clarifying whether the petitioner was employed under respondent No.1/the owner of the offending vehicle. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10315 MFA No. 103426 of 2016 (iv) Respondents No.1 and 2/the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle shall, file a statement of objections within one month from the date of their appearance before the Commissioner. Thereafter the Commissioner is directed to record further evidence, if necessary and pass an appropriate judgment in accordance with the law. (v) It is made clear that in the event the petitioner succeeds in before the trail Court, he will not be entitled to an interest from the date of filing of this appeal, i.e., from 19.10.2016 till this date. (vi) All contentions of the parties are kept open. (vii) The office is directed to send the trial Court records forthwith. (viii) The parties are directed to appear before the commissioner on 27.10.2025 without awaiting any further notice. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13