- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 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. 100247 OF 2014 (WC-) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE-I, NO-2, ENKAY COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, KESHWAPUR, HUBLI-580023, R/THROUGH ITS REP.BY ITS SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGAR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHARNAPPA S. KOLIWAD, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. CHANDRU S/O YAMANAPPA HAVALAMMANAVAR, AGE: 30 YEARS, R/O: MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI. 2. SRI. S. R. BELLARY AGE: 41 YEARS, R/O: MOTEBENNUR, TQ: BYADAGI, DT: HAVERI (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR-TRAILER NO.KA-27/TA-619) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR M. HOSAMANI, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WC ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE ORDER DTD:06.03.2013 PASSED IN WCA.NF NO.114/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,92,173/- 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 12:31:30 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and award passed in WCA.CR.No-114/2012 dated 06.03.2013 by the learned Labor Officer and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Haveri (for short ‘the Commissioner’). 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings ranking before the Commissioner. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 28.03.2012, the petitioner, while working as a driver of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-27/TA-619 belonging to the owner/ Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, met with an accident and sustained grievous injuries during the course of the employment. It is contended that the, when the petitioner was driving the Tractor and was travelling to Kunabevu as per the directions - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 of the owner, the accident occurred. The petitioner has suffered permanent disability. Hence, he filed the claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. It is contended that the tractor and trailer was insured with the Insurance Company. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 4. Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal i.e., owner of the tractor, filed a statement of objections admitting that the petitioner was working under the employment of owner as a driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-27/TA- 619 and that there existed a employer and employee relationship between them. It is also admitted that the petitioner sustained injuries in the road traffic accident occurred on 28.03.2012. It is further contended that he was paying Rs.200/- as a daily wages and Rs.50/- as a daily batta, and that a criminal case was registered against the driver of the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-27/TA-619. It is contended that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and that the Insurance Company is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the offending vehicle. 5. The Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and also denied that there existed a relationship employer and employee between the petitioner and the owner of the tractor. It is contended that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Insurance Company also filed an additional statement of objections and contended that the insurance policy was issued to the tractor for the agricultural purpose but at the time of the accident the tractor was used for the commercial purpose, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2/ Insurance Company.. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 7. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 8. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, and marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to P9. The petitioner also examined the Doctor as PW-2. 9. Conversely, the owner was examined as RW-1 and the Insurance Company examined its Senior Assistant as RW-2, and marked 4 documents as Ex.R1 to R4. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition vide judgment dated 06.03.2013 and awarded a compensation of Rs.1,92,173/- with interest. The insurance company was directed to deposit the compensation amount. 10. The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the Judgment and award passed by the Commissioner, fastening the liability, filed this appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 11. Heard the learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the petitioner. 12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the tractor was attached to a water tank. Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed by the petitioner. The Commissioner did not appreciate the contents of Ex.R.2-1 to Ex.R.2-4, which disclose that attaching the water tank to violates the policy conditions. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 13. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident occurred during the course of and out of employment. He submits that the cause of the accident was the tractor and not the water tank. The Commissioner was justified in fastening the liability jointly and severally. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 14. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation was justified in ignoring the contents of the policy wherein the Insurance Company established that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy? 15. There is no dispute that the petitioner was a driver of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-27/TA-619. On the date of the accident, he was driving the tractor. The water tank was attached to the tractor. There is no dispute that the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. There is no doubt that the water tank was being pulled by or attached to the tractor when the lorry came and dashed to the tractor. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It is not the case that only because of some fault on the part of the water tank, the accident occurred. To explain, one may give an example: if the water tank, being statutory, is the place and due to some reasons, a mishap happened without the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 water tank being specifically insured, the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay. But here, the main cause of the accident was the tractor which was pulling/driving/moving the water tank, and in such a sequence of events, the tractor upturned and the accident occurred. Thus, the accident was caused by the tractor and not by the water tank during the course of being driven/pulled by the tractor. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company on the ground that the tractor was insured with the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor. Further, insofar as the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and the owner of the vehicle is concerned, it is only a question of fact and not a substantial question of law. 16. It is necessary to place reliance on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of the Royal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited Vs. Honnamma and others1, held as under: Thus, the liability of the tractor/its insurer extended to the accident caused by the tractor resulting in the death of the deceased, through the trailer. This being the positing in the present case, the principles emanating from the decisions where the Courts have held that the trailer has to be separately registered with the Insurance Company to make it liable, would not be applicable. To that extent, the facts in the present case are clearly distinguishable from the ones cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned Judgment and award. 18. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any error in the impugned Judgment. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question of law in the negative. 19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Appeal is dismissed. 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1027 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11012 MFA No. 100247 of 2014 (ii) The Judgment and award passed in WCA.CR-114/2012 dated 06.03.2013 by the learned Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Haveri, is hereby confirmed. (iii) The amount in deposit, if any, along with trial Court records, be transmitted to the Commissioner, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE RHR/- CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14