- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103736 OF 2019 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BALLARI-583101, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED OFFICER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. SMT. HANMAWWA W/O. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA JAVALAGERI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: YADDONI, NOW AT: NARINALA, TQ: KUSHTAGI-583277. 2. KUM. RENUKAMMA D/O. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA JAVALAGERI, AGE: 15 YEARS, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND I.E. HER NATURAL MOTHER HANUMAWWA, R/O: YADDONI, NOW AT: NARINALA, TQ: KUSHTAGI-583277. 3. ANANDA S/O. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA JAVALAGERI, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND I.E. HER NATURAL MOTHER HANUMAWWA, R/O: YADDONI, NOW AT: NARINALA, TQ: KUSHTAGI-583277. Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 4. DYAMANNA S/O. VEERAPPA @ IRAPPA JAVALAGERI, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT MINOR, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND I.E. HER NATURAL MOTHER HANUMAWWA, R/O: YADDONI, NOW AT: NARINALA, TQ: KUSHTAGI-583277. 5. HANUMANTHGOUDA B. POLICE PATIL, AGED ABOUT: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIKKA-MYAGERI, TQ: YALABURGA-583236. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHIVANAND MALASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI A.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5; (R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1)) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/MODIFY THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.04.2019, PASSED IN W.C.NO.1/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KUSHTAGI AND ETC.,. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 12.04.2019, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kushtagi, in W.C.No.01/2015, on the ground that there is no nexus between the vehicle and the accident. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 2. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased is the husband of claimant No.1 namely Veerappa who was working under the employment of respondent No.5 as a labourer in tractor No.KA-37/9262, owned by him, who used to load the tractor with manure, sand, stone for agricultural work and thus, on 18.05.2014 at 05.00 p.m. the deceased upon instruction and the work entrusted by respondent No.5, went to the field to load mud from the hillock and for loading the same to the tractor. At the time of digging the land, a stone has fallen on the head of the deceased, due to which the deceased died. Therefore, the claimants being wife and children have filed claim petition under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act. The tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.13,76,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the material placed on record. 4. Learned counsel for appellant insurance company, in support of the grounds raised in the memorandum of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 appeal, has submitted that there is no nexus between the accident and the tractor and trailer. The deceased might have been worked under the employment of respondent No.5 but there is no nexus between the accident and tractor and trailer. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify respondent No.5 owner of the vehicle. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/claimants submitted that the deceased was digging the hillock for loading the mud to the tractor, which was standing away from the place of accident, therefore, both tractor and deceased were engaged by respondent No.5. Therefore, submitted that there is nexus between the accident and the vehicle. Hence, justified the judgment and award passed by the tribunal. 6. Upon hearing the arguments, the following substantial questions of law would arise for my consideration. i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the appellant Insurance Company proves that there is no nexus between the accident - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 and the tractor No.KA-37/9262 and thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation? ii) Whether the judgment and award passed by the tribunal requires interference by this Court? 7. In the present case it is not in dispute that the deceased was working under the employment of respondent No.5. The only disputed fact is that the tractor was not being used by the deceased and respondent No.5 and it was stationed far away from the place of accident. Hence it is the ground raised by the insurance company that there is no nexus between the accident and the tractor and trailer. On 18.05.2014 the deceased was entrusted with the work of loading the mud in the tractor by digging the hillock. While in the process of digging the hillock and loading in the tractor trailer, a stone fell from the top of the hillock on the head of the deceased and thus, the deceased had sustained grievous head injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 8. The submission made by the learned counsel for the insurance company cannot be accepted for the reason that though the deceased was digging the hillock for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 collecting mud before the process of loading the same to the trailer attached to the tractor and at that time the tractor attached with trailer might have stationed at some far off place, but the tractor was used for the purpose of loading the mud. At the particular point of time the deceased might not have been loading the tractor, but he was in the process of collecting the mud by digging the hillock and at that moment the deceased died. Therefore, the work of digging the hillock and loading the tractor trailer cannot be separated. 9. The employment injury or death out of and in the co-employment cannot be segregated between the place of accident and the use of the tractor. The deceased was engaged by respondent No.5 in the process of digging the hillock and collecting mud and loading the same to the trailer attached to the tractor. The employment in component is to be considered as a whole, but could not be segregated. Admittedly the deceased was engaged by respondent No.5. The tractor belongs to respondent No.5. Therefore, in this regard death of deceased is out of and in the course of employment while making use of the tractor and trailer. In - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 this regard the tribunal is correct in holding that death of the deceased is out of and in the course of employment and involvement of tractor is proved. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by the appellant Insurance Company in this regard. 10. There is no dispute with regard to death of the deceased caused out of and in the course of employment while working as a labourer under the employment of respondent No.5, who is the employer. The accident occurred on 18.05.2014. The deceased was aged 32 years old at the time of accident. The Tribunal has committed an error in holding wage of Rs.13,500/- p.m. as per Section 4(1)(a) read with Section 4(1)(b) of the Employees compensation Act, 1923. This Court taking note of the age, avocation of the deceased as a labourer and year of the accident, re-assesses the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month as per the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act and retain the relevant factor taken by the commissioner, by awarding 12% interest per annum after 30 days from the date of accident - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 till the date of deposit. Hence, this Court re-assesses the compensation as under: Rs.8,000/- x 50% x 203.85 = Rs.8,15,400/- 11. This Court is of the considered view that, the Tribunal has committed an error in not awarding any compensation under the head of funeral expenses. Hence, it would be just and proper to award compensation of Rs.5,000/- under the head funeral expenses. Thus, in all, the claimants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,20,400/- (Rs.8,15,400/- plus Rs.5,000/-) along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30 days from the date of accident till the date of deposit, as against Rs.13,76,000/- awarded by the tribunal. 12. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. 13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 12.04.2019, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kushtagi, in W.C.No.01/2015, is modified holding that the claimants are entitled for total compensation Rs.8,20,400/- as against Rs.13,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. iii) The compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum after 30 days from the date of accident till the date of deposit. iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1970 MFA No. 103736 of 2019 v) The claimants are not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 120 days in filing the appeal. vi) Amount in deposit made by the Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. vii) Send back trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment to the tribunal. viii) No order as to costs. ix) Draw award accordingly. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK-para 1 to 9. SRA-para 10 to end. CT: UMD. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25