- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7357 MFA No. 24089 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 24089 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY NOW REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ARIHANT PLAZA OPP: SBI ZONAL OFFICE, KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI SHEIKH JAFFAR BASHA @ SHEIKH MOHAMMAD BASHA S/O LATE M.A. SHARIFF, AGE: 31 YEARS, R/O: NO.11, 40B, KOUL BAZAR, MAIN ROAD, BALLARI. 2. SHRI ABDUL MAJID KHAN S/O GULAM RASOOL, REGISTERED OWNER OF THE LORRY, BEARING NO.AP16/X1727, R/O: NO.3/187, V.N. COLLEGE ROAD, HOSPET, DIST: BALLARI. 3. SHRI T. RAMESH, LORRY INSURANCE POLICY HOLDER, BEARING NO.AP-16/X1727, R/O: 4-2-45, ROTARY NAGAR, KHAMMAM, ANDHRA PRADESH. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOUBHAGYA VAKKUND, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-HELD SUFFICIENT; R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7357 MFA No. 24089 of 2012 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1)OF THE W.C.ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 24.05.2012, PASSED IN WCA/25/2011/F ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, BELLARY SUB- DIVISION-II, BELLARY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This is an appeal by the Insurance Company/appellant filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘Act, 1923’), questioning the judgment and award dated 24.05.2012 passed in WCA/25/2011/F on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-II, Bellary (for short, ‘Commissioner’), thereby, the learned Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs.4,11,900/- to the brother of Sri. Azamatullah Shariff (for short, ‘deceased’). 2. The brother of the deceased has filed the claim petition by stating that the deceased was working as a driver under the employment of respondent No.2, who was arraigned as respondent No.1 before the learned Commissioner. The deceased died out of and in the course of employment. The claimant/respondent No.1 being major brother of the deceased, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7357 MFA No. 24089 of 2012 has filed the claim petition. The learned Commissioner has awarded compensation under the head of loss of dependency to the claimant, who is the major brother of deceased. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that the claimant/respondent No.1 has not been categorized as dependent, in view of Section 2(d) of the Act, 1923. Hence, the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner is erroneous. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant justifies the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The following substantial question of law would arises for consideration in this appeal: a) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the claimant, being brother of the deceased, who is major in age, can maintain claim under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923? - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7357 MFA No. 24089 of 2012 6. Section 2(d) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, reads as under: “(d) “dependant” means any of the following relatives of deceased [employee], namely:- (i) a widow, a minor [legitimate or adopted] son, an unmarried [legitimate or adopted] daughter or a widowed mother; and (ii) if wholly dependant on the earnings of the [employee] at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm; (iii) if wholly or in part dependant on the earnings of the [employee] at the time of his death,-- (a) a widower, (b) a parent other than a widowed mother, (c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter [legitimate or illegitimate or adopted] if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor, (d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor, (e) a widowed daughter-in-law, (f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7357 MFA No. 24089 of 2012 (g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or (h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the [employee] is alive;]” 7. Admittedly, in the present case, the claimant/respondent No.1, who is major, is the brother of the deceased. But as per Section 2(d) of the Act, 1923, as above stipulated, the brother of deceased could not be said that he was depending on the income of the deceased. Therefore, when the claimant claim is not been categorized as dependent, the claim petition is not maintainable. The deceased died as bachelor. Therefore, the claimant, being major in age, cannot maintain claim petition. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner is erroneous. Thus, accepting the argument conveyed by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company/appellant, the appeal is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer point No.(i) in the ‘negative’. 8. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7357 MFA No. 24089 of 2012 b) The judgment and award dated 24.05.2012 passed in WCA/25/2011/F on the file of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-II, Bellary, is hereby set aside. c) The amount in deposit made by the appellant/Insurance Company shall be transmitted to the appellant. d) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37