- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22016 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN: 1. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI, HEREIN REP BY NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY HUB OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580029 REP BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. R MANE, ADV) AND: 1. SMT. GEETA W/O. TAVANESH DESAI AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HALAGA, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. KUMARI PRAGATI D/O. TAVANESH DESAI AGE: 15 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT 3. KUMARI PRANITA D/O. TAVANESH DESAI AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT 4. KUMARI ANANYA MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.16 12:16:07 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 D/O. TAVANESH DESAI AGE: 04 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT ALL ARE R/O: HALAGA, TQ & DIST. BELAGAVI.ESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE MINORS, THEY ARE REP BY THEIR NATUARL GUARDIAN MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.1) 5. SHRI. BAHUBALI TAVANAPPA DESAI AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHAVEER GALLI, HALAGA, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI (OWNER OF INDICA CAR NO.GA-09/A-1347) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH S MAIGUR, ADV FOR R1 R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS, REP BY R1 NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15-01-2013 PASSED IN KAPAKA/SR-63/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-1, BELAGAVI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,68,680/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A., AFTER 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT TILL ITS DEPOSIT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the insurance company, challenging the judgment and award dated 15.01.2013 passed by the learned Labour Officer and the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division No.1, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’, for short), in WCA/SR No.63/2012. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: One Tavanesh Desai was working as a driver in an Indica car bearing registration No.GA-09/A-1347 belonging to respondent No.5, who is the owner, for the past two years for a salary of Rs.7,500/- per month and bhatta of Rs.50/- per day. On 27.11.2011, when Tavanesh Desai, on the instruction of Respondent No.5, was proceeding from Goa to Belagavi by Indica car to drop the relatives of respondent No.5 and when he was driving the Indica car and had reached near Kasavali, Goa, on NH 4-A, the car capsized by the wrong side on the road, causing his death while under treatment in Bambolim Hospital, Goa, on the next day. It is contended that, the accident arose out of, and during the course of employment. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 herein, being the legal representatives of Tavanesh were depending on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 income of the deceased Tavanesh Desai. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed a claim petition claiming the compensation. Respondent No.5 the owner has filed a statement of objections, admitting that deceased Tavanesh was a driver and contended that the vehicle was insured with appellant herein and the liability may be saddled on the insurance company. 3. The appellant-insurance company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and it is also contended that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased Tavanesh Desai and respondent No.5. It is also contended that the claim petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 is not maintainable. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition. 4. The claimants to prove their claim, claimant No.1/Respondent No.1 herein examined herself as PW.1, and marked 6 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-6. In rebuttal, the respondents therein, before the Tribunal i.e., the owner of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 the vehicle and the insurance company, have neither led any evidence nor marked any documents. 5. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 15.01.2013 and granted a compensation of Rs.5,68,680/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after 30 days from the date of the accident. 6. The insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondents 1 to 4 have failed to establish that there exists a relationship of employer and employee between the deceased Tavanesh Desai and respondent No.5. He also submitted that respondent No.5 is the father of deceased - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 Tavanesh Desai. Hence, on these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that deceased Tavanesh Desai was working as a driver under respondent No.5 and he was drawing a salary of Rs.7,500/- per month and Rs.50 per day as Bhatta. He submits that, on 27.11.2011, the deceased was driving the vehicle to drop the relatives of respondent No.5, the vehicle capsized hence, the deceased sustained injury and succumbed to the injuries. He submitted that insofar as the relationship of employer and employee is concerned, it is a question of fact, and not a substantial question of law. Hence, he submitted that the award passed by the Commissioner is just and proper. He also submitted that respondent No.5 filed a statement of objections admitting the relationship of employer and employee between him and the deceased Tavanesh Desai. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 10. This Court, admitted the appeal, to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the Commissioner acted illegally and perversely in coming to the conclusion that there existed the relationship of employer-employee between respondent No.5 and the deceased Tavanesh Desai ignoring the material evidence on record that the deceased was the son of respondent No.5 and respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 5 were staying together as a family? Regarding substantial question of law 11. There is no dispute regarding the accident, and the death of Tavanesh Desai in a road traffic accident. It is the case of respondent Nos.1 to 4 that the deceased was working as a driver under respondent No.5, who is the father of the deceased and he was drawing a salary of Rs.7,500/- per month. The said fact has been admitted by respondent No.5 by filing a statement of objections. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 have produced documents to establish the existence of a relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No.5. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 12. Insofar as the relationship is concerned: It is a question of fact and not a substantial question of law. Further, though the appellant-insuance company has filed a statement of objections, but it has not led any evidence in support of its defence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav and another v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another1 referring to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court Division Bench in the case of Golla Rajamma and another v. Divisional Manager2 and another observed that, “… under the scheme of the Act, Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High 1 2023 scc on line SC 1105 2 (2017) 1 scc 45 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.” 13. Admittedly in the instant case, respondent No.5 filed a statement of objections admitting that the deceased was the employee of respondent No.5. Though, the insurance company has filed a statement of objections denying the relationship of employer and employee, but the official of the insurance company has not entered the witness box. There is no rebuttal evidence. The Scope under Section 30 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act is very minimal. This Court under Section 30 of the Act, cannot re- appreciate the evidence on record. The Commissioner was justified in recording a finding that there exists a relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.5 and the deceased, and also rightly awarded compensation to respondent Nos.1 to 4. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. 14. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the negative. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9429 MFA No. 22016 of 2013 15. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and award dated 15.01.2013 passed by the learned Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division No.1, Belagavi, in WCA/SR No.63/2012, is hereby confirmed. Amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB