- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:205 MFA No. 24437 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24437 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., N.K. COMPLEX, KESHVAPUR, HUBLI, REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBLI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVRAJ S/O. HOLEYAPPA GANJAL, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O. HARANGIRI TALUK, RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT. HAVERI. 2. SHRI HOLEYAPPA S/O. BASAVANNEPPA GUNJAL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF VEHICLE, R/O. HARANGIRI, TALUK: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT. HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIDDAPPA SAJJAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI MADANMOHAN M.KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 12.04.2011 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI, IN W.C. NO.116/2010 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING THE COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:205 MFA No. 24437 of 2012 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 12.04.2011 passed in W.C.A.No.106/2010 by the Labour Officer And Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings berofre the Trial Court. 3. It is the case of the claimant/respondent No.1 that the claimant was working as driver under the employment of respondent No.2 and on 27.04.2010 at about 4.30 a.m. by the instruction of respondent No.2 the claimant was driving the Bolero Maxi Truck bearing Reg.No.KA-27/A-4145 when proceeding so from Ranebennur to Hassan and near - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:205 MFA No. 24437 of 2012 Kadur another truck dashed against the said Bolero Maxi Truck. Due to the said impact, the claimant/respondent No.1 had sustained injuries in the accident out of and in the course of employment. Therefore, filed claim petition for claiming compensation and the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,594/- directing the insurance company/appellant to pay compensation in view of the existence of insurance policy. 4. Heard the arguments from both sides and perused the materials placed on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that the claimant/respondent No.1 is son of respondent No.2 and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and respondent No.2. Further submitted that the claimant was having driving licence to drive only light motor vehicle (non transport), but there is no endorsement - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:205 MFA No. 24437 of 2012 and permit in the licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle. Hence, there is an infraction of conditions of insurance policy. On these two grounds insurance company has preferred the appeal. 6. So far as infraction of conditions of insurance policy as alleged is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 663. According to which, a person who is holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (non transport) can also drive the (transport) vehicle. In the present case, the vehicle involved in the accident is Bolero Maxi Truck, the driving licence possessed by the driver is light motor vehicle (non transport). Therefore, there is no fundamental breach of conditions of insurance policy and in this regard, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:205 MFA No. 24437 of 2012 there is no merit in the grounds urged by the insurance company/appellant. 7. Regarding relationship of employer and employee, though the claimant is son of respondent No.2 there is no prohibition of law that employing the son by father as a driver of the vehicle. The relationship is different and avocation is different. The father can engage his son as employee for driving of the vehicle. Therefore, in this regard, there is no merit found in the grounds raised by the insurance company/appellant therefore, the appeal is found to be devoid of merits. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and award dated 12.04.2011 passed in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:205 MFA No. 24437 of 2012 W.C.A.No.106/2010 by the Labour Officer And Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri is hereby confirmed. iii. No order as to costs. iv. Draw award accordingly. v. The amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 49