- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021 MFA No. 20276 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20276 OF 2012 (WC-) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RAMDEVA GALLI, BELGAUM. NOW REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SUJATHA COMPLEX, P B ROAD, HUBLI-580029. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANGADHAR S HOSAKERI, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. MAHAGUNDAPPA GANIGER, AGE: 36 YEARS, BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. MAHAGUNDAPPA HUCHAMAGUNDAPPANAVAR, R/O: GANIGER GALLI, BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S. YALIGAR, ADV FOR R1, NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:12.10.2011 PASSED IN W.C NO.83/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, BAGALKOT DISTRICT BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,49,292/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021 MFA No. 20276 of 2012 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE 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 Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act,’ for short) by the appellant-Insurance Company, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.10.2011 passed in WC.NF.No.83/2008 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Commissioner,’ for short). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was working as a driver of an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No. KA-29/6495, belonged to respondent no.1. it is contended that on 27.01.2008, while the petitioner was driving the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021 MFA No. 20276 of 2012 auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-29/6495 as per the instructions of Respondent No.1, carrying passengers, from Badami to Ramdurg Cross towards Karadigudda village, the driver of an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-29/7085 was coming from Karadigudda side towards the Badami, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-29/6495, and caused an accident. As the result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries during the course and out of the employment. Thus, the petitioner, filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act, claiming compensation. 4. Notice was issued to respondent No.1-owner of the offending auto-rickshaw. Despite the service of notice, he remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte. 5. Respondent No.2-the Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that there is no relationship of employer-employee between the owner of the auto- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021 MFA No. 20276 of 2012 rickshaw and the petitioner. It is also contended that the there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. Conversely, the Insurance Company examined its officer as R.W.1, and no documents were marked. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,292/- with interest, and held that the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021 MFA No. 20276 of 2012 to deposit the compensation amount. The appellant- Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner in WC.NF.No.83/2008, has filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that there is no relationship of employer-employee between the owner of the auto-rickshaw and the petitioner. He submits that the driver of the auto-rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. The Commissioner did not consider these aspects and proceeded to allow the claim petition. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is arbitrary and erroneous, and contrary to the records. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal and dismiss the claim petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021 MFA No. 20276 of 2012 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, the petitioner was working as a driver as of the date of the accident. He submits that the accident occurred during the course and out of the employment. He submits that there exists a relationship of employer-employee between the petitioner and the owner of the auto-rickshaw. He submits that the Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned judgment and the award. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 12. This court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law. Whether the Commissioner was justified in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company in spite of there being no relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 herein? - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021 MFA No. 20276 of 2012 Substantial question of law. 13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The petitioner contended that he was an employee of the owner of an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No. KA-29/6495. The accident was occurred during the course and out of the employment. The Insurance Company has denied the exitance of relationship of employer- employee between the owner of the auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-29/6495 and the petitioner. Respondent No.1- the owner of the said auto-rickshaw, has employed the petitioner as a driver. Though notice was issued to the owner, but despite the service of notice, he remained unrepresented. The owner of the said auto-rickshaw did not deny that the petitioner is an employee under him. In the absence of denial of the relationship of employer-employee, the Commissioner has rightly held that there exists a relationship of employer-employee between the owner of the auto-rickshaw and the petitioner. The Commissioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021 MFA No. 20276 of 2012 considering the evidence on record as rightly held that there exists a relationship of employer-employee between the owner of the auto-rickshaw and the petitioner, and he sustained injuries during the course and out of the employment. 14. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS SMT. MAHANANDA AND OTHERS IN MFA NO.5426/2007, disposed of on 31.01.2009, has held that the issue of employer and employee relationship is a pure question of fact. It cannot be raised as a question of law, much less, the substantial question of law, in the wake of some evidence given by the employer. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. 15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The Appeal is dismissed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021 MFA No. 20276 of 2012 ii) The judgment and award dated 12.10.2011 passed in WC.NF.No.83/2008 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bagalkot, is hereby confirmed. iii) The records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bagalkot, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2