- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9266 MFA No. 21512 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21512 OF 2012 (WC-) BETWEEN: 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THE BRANCH MANAGER, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DIST REP. BY ITS THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRIYUTHS. SHASHANK S. HEGDE AND PREETI SHASHANK, ADVS) AND: 1. M. PRAKASH S/O MANGAYYA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: EX. DRIVER, R/O. HULAGI, TQ: & DIST: KOPPAL. 2. K. HULIYAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O HOUSE NO.4-3-198, DAASAMAPUR, TQ: HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, DIST: BALLARI (OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KA-35/T-2209. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE W.C. ACT 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED:28.12.2011, PASSED IN LOB:CWC:CR:106/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.79,819/- 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. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER : MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.08.16 12:17:40 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9266 MFA No. 21512 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the insurance company-Appellant under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and award dated 28.12.2011 passed in LOB:CWC:CR:106/2009 by the learned Labour Officer, and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Koppal, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’, for short). 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: It is the case of the claimant that he met with an accident on 02.01.2008 while driving the tractor trailer bearing registration No.KA.35/T-2209 belonging to 2nd respondent herien-K. Huliyappa, and it is insured with the appellant-insurance company. It is contended that he used to earn Rs.4,000/- monthly and bhatta of Rs.100/- on a daily basis. It is contended that the claimant was working as a driver to the tractor under Respondent No.1. Due to the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9266 MFA No. 21512 of 2012 accident, the claimant sustained a permanent disability. Hence, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Commissioner. The insurance company filed statement of objections contending that the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy conditions. It is contended that the vehicle i.e., the Tractor was used for a non-agricultural purpose, on a hire and reward basis. The owner of the vehicle has violated the conditions mentioned in the policy. Hence, the insurance company contends that it is not liable to indemnify the claimant. Therefore, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed relevant issues. 3. The claimant, to prove his claim, examined himself as PW.1, the Doctor was also examined through the Commissioner and marked 8 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-8. The official of the Insurance company was examined as RW.1 and one document was marked as Ex.R.1. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9266 MFA No. 21512 of 2012 Commissioner, after recording evidence, and considering verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition and awarded the compensation of Rs.79,819/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from one month after the date of the accident. 4. The insurance company - Respondent No.2, aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner, filed this appeal. 5. Notices were issued to the respondents herein despite service of notice, they have remained absent and unrepresented. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tractor-trailor is used only for agricultural purpose. However, the owner of the tractor has utilised the said vehicle for non-agricultural purpose. He submits that, in the complaint itself, it is mentioned that the said tractor was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9266 MFA No. 21512 of 2012 utilised for non-agricultural purpose. Hence, there is violation of the policy conditions and therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify/pay the compensation. He submits that the Commissioner has not correctly appreciated the evidence of RW.1-the official of Insurance company and committed an error in passing the impugned judgment, and award. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. This Court vide order dated 15.03.2013 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation acted contrary to law and terms of Misc. and Special type of vehicles Farmers Package Policy produced at Ex.R.1 while making the insurer liable to pay the compensation assessed by him? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9266 MFA No. 21512 of 2012 Reg: substantial acquisition law. 10. There is no dispute regarding the accident having occurred on 02.01.2008 and the claimant having sustained injuries. A complaint was lodged against the driver of the tractor-trailor alleging that the said vehicle was used for a non-agricultural purpose. The appellant issued a policy that the tractor-trailor to be used only for the agricultural purpose. But the 2nd Respondent -owner of the vehicle has utilised the tractor and trailor for non-agricultural purposes. Thus, there is a violation of the policy conditions. The said aspect was not adequately considered by the Commissioner in granting the compensation to the petitioner. The Commissioner, without considering the complaint and the charge-sheet, has proceeded to pass the impugned judgment, and award. Thus, the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, the appellant-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, as there is a violation of the conditions of the insurance policy as the tractor and trailer was used for non-agriculture purpose. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9266 MFA No. 21512 of 2012 11. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 28.12.2011 passed in LOB:CWC:CR:106/2009 by the learned Labour Officer and Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Koppal, is set aside. iii. The claim petition filed by the claimant against the appellant-insurance company/respondent No.2 before the Commissioner is dismissed. The office is directed to refund the amount in deposit to the appellant. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB