- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102831 OF 2015 (WC) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SEETA SMIRITI PB NO.156, 1568 MARUTI GALLI, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O. BASAWANT PATRUT, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: CHINCHALI UPPARAWADI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. GOPAL S/O. BASAWANT PATRUT, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHINCHALI UPPARAWADI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELAGAVI. (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR-TRAILER NO.KA-23/T-1375 AND NO.KA-3/TB-5767) …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2-NOTICE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 30.04.2015 PASSED IN ECA NO.02/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AT RAIBAG, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,36,872/- WITH INTEREST AT THE 12% P.A.FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT TILL THE DAT OF DEPOSIT. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.12 16:39:08 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI 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 by the insurance company, challenging the judgment and award dated 30.04.2015 passed in E.C.A.No.02/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., and the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Raibag, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commissioner’, for short). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 17.03.2012, the petitioner was discharging his duty as a coolie along with other persons and after cutting the sugarcane in the land of one Sri Laxman Shivarai Tuljannavar and was loading the same in the trailer with - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 keeping the ladder touching the trailer. While so loading, at about 03:30 PM, all of a sudden, he lost his balance and fell down from the ladder on the land, and thereby, sustained the grievous injuries all over the body. He was admitted to the hospital and spent a huge amount for treatment. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.14/2012. It is contended that Gopal Basawant Patrut is the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-23/T-1375 and KA-23/TB-5767 and the petitioner was employed as coolie in the said tractor owned by Gopal Basawant Patrut ,and it is contended that the accident occurred during the course of employment. Therefore, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1995. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the accident was not occurred in the course of employment. It is contended that there is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 no nexus between the Petitioner and the owner of the said tractor as an employer and employee. The liability of the insurance company is subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance Policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 4. Despite the service of notice, the owner of the Tractor remained unrepresented before the Commissioner and was placed exparte. 5. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-2 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-9. The respondents have not led by the oral or documentary evidence. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 7. The Commissioner, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgement dated 30.04.2015 and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,36,872/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the accident till the date of deposit and directed the insurance company to deposit the compensation amount. The insurance company, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award, filed this appeal on the ground of the quantum of compensation. 8. A Notice was issued to the respondents. Despite service of a notice, the respondent herein / the petitioner remained unrepresented. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company. 10. Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the petitioner was the brother of the owner of the offending vehicle and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 Gopal Basawant Patrut i.e., the owner of the tractor. He also submits that the Commissioner did not deduct 40% of the income and directly considered the entire income of Rs.8,000/- and awarded the compensation. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 12. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: “Whether the insurance company proves that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is exorbitant?” 13. There is no dispute that the petitioner met with the accident on 17.03.2012 while he was discharging his duty as a coolie along with other persons. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.14/2012 with Kudachi Police - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 Station. The petitioner has proved that the accident occurred during the course of employment. 14. It is the case of the insurance company that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent No.1 before the tribunal i.e., the owner of the offending vehicle. Though the insurance company has filed a statement of objections, the insurance company has not examined any witnesses to rebut the evidence of PW-1, who has stated in the examination-in-chief that he is the employee of respondent No.1 before the Tribunal i.e., the owner of the tractor as of the date of the accident. It is settled law that the owner and the driver having a blood relation would not be reason to suspect the relationship as employer and employee between them and there is no such impediment in the law to employ the family member as an employee by the employer. Further, the relationship regarding the employer and employee is not a substantial question of law. Hence, the Commissioner was justified in recording the finding that - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 there exists a relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and Gopal Basawant Patrut i.e., the owner of the tractor involved in the accident. 15. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for insurance company that the Commissioner has taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- and has not deducted 40% of the amount. Therefore, 60% of the income is to be considered for the calculation of the compensation amount which comes to Rs.4,800/-. The petitioner was 35 years old as of the date of the accident, and the relevant factor applicable to the age group of the petitioner is 197.06. The commissioner has rightly assessed the disability at 15%, considering the evidence of PW-2 and EX. P.5. Accordingly, the compensation is re-calculated as follows: Rs.4,800 x 197.06 x 15/100 = 1,41,883/- 16. The petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,41,883/- as against Rs.2,36,782/-. Thus, the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 compensation awarded by the Commissioner requires to be reduced. 17. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law in the affirmative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 30.04.2025 passed in E.C.A.No.02/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T. and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Raibag, is hereby modified. (iii) The petitioner is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,41,883 against Rs.2,36,872/-. (iv) The insurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest at the rate of 12% p.a. one month after the date of accident till the date of deposit within a eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11128 MFA No. 102831 of 2015 (v) The amount in deposit be transmitted to the Court of the Commissioner. (vi) The excess amount, if any, be refunded to the insurance company. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE NAA CT:PA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8