- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7358 MFA No. 24123 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. 24123 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, 1628, KAIKINI ROAD, KARWAR (U.K.) POLICY NO.602504/31/07/6300001474 VALID FROM 12/06/2007 TO 11/06/2008 NOW REPRESENTED 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. NAGARAJ S/O DEVANNA NAYAK, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: POWER TILLER-COOLIE WORK, R/O: BEDALLI, SUNKSAL, ANKOLA, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR. 2. SHRI PRASHANT SUDHAKAR NAYAK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF POWER TILLER ENGINE NO.2858/3/2007, R/O: HEGGAR SUNKASAL, ANKOLA, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR. 3. SHRI SUDHAKAR HAMMANA NAYAK, R/O: MOOLEMANI, SUNKASAL, ANKOLA, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT. … RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7358 MFA No. 24123 of 2012 (BY SMT. MANASI JIGAJINNI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. V.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE W.C. ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04/07/2012 PASSED IN WCA-NF/9/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION AND LABOUR OFFICER, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR. 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 filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘Act, 1923’), challenging the judgment and award dated 04.07.2012 passed in WCA-NF/9/2008 on the file of learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Labour Officer, Uttar Kannada District, Karwar (for short, ‘Commissioner’). 2. It is the case of claimant/respondent No.1 that he was working as driver under the employment of respondent No.2. On 29.11.2007, claimant/respondent No.1 was ploughing land with a power tiller engine bearing registration No.2858/3/2007 and has ploughed the land from 27.11.2007 to 09.12.2007. Thereafter, as per the instructions - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7358 MFA No. 24123 of 2012 of respondent No.2, who was arraigned as respondent No.1 before the learned Commissioner, the claimant came to Belekeri village and he started ploughing the field of respondent No.2 with power tiller. On 09.12.2007, respondent No.2 wanted to shift power tiller to Avarsa village by taking power tiller on a goods rickshaw. The claimant/respondent No.1 further pleads that as per the direction of respondent No.2, he was holding power tiller in order to load the same in a goods rickshaw. At that time, respondent No.2 suddenly started power tiller, as a result of which, the claimant/respondent No.1 sustained amputation of two fingers. Accordingly, claimant/respondent No.1 had sustained employment injuries out of and in the course of employment. Hence, filed the claim petition for compensation. 3. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 4. The learned Commissioner has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,15,473/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from thirty days after the date of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7358 MFA No. 24123 of 2012 the accident till realization. Being aggrieved by it, the Insurance Company has preferred the appeal. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that there is no employer and employee relationship between the claimant/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is the owner of power tiller. Respondent No.3 has not instructed the claimant/respondent No.1 to do the work. Thus, prays to set aside the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner and allow the appeal. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are son and father respectively. Hence, the claimant is working under both respondent Nos.2 and 3. Hence, there is no merit in the contention urged by learned counsel for the appellant. Thus, prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. The following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration in this appeal: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7358 MFA No. 24123 of 2012 a) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, claimant is not entitled to compensation because of the fact that the claimant/respondent No.1 was not instructed by respondent No.3 and hence there was no employer and employee relationship? b) Whether order and award passed by the learned Commissioner requires any interference of this Court? 8. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer is that there is no employer and employee relationship between the claimant and respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is the owner of the power tiller and has engaged the claimant/respondent No.1 to till his land. However, it is argued that this arrangement does not establish an employer and employee relationship between the claimant/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. 9. Upon perusal of the cause title of the petition filed before the learned Commissioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 (respondent Nos.2 and 3 in this appeal) are son and father respectively. This factum of relationship between respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein is not disputed by the appellant/insurance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7358 MFA No. 24123 of 2012 company. Quite naturally, respondent No.3 being the father and respondent No.2 being the son, it is implied that respondent No.3, being part of the family owns the power tiller and the land. Respondent No.2, son has asked the claimant/respondent No.1 to till the land through power tiller. 10. Further, it is not disputed that the claimant/respondent No.1 working as a coolie under the employment of respondent No.2 (respondent No.3 herein). Therefore, if respondent No.2, the son of respondent No.3 has asked the claimant to do coolie work of tilling the land with power tiller, it would amount to being commissioned by respondent No.3 himself in this regard. 11. Considering the relationship between respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, the employer and employee between respondent Nos.2 and 3 together and claimant/respondent No.1 is proved. Hence, the learned Commissioner has correctly observed this and granted compensation, which needs no interference. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7358 MFA No. 24123 of 2012 13. Amount in deposit made by the appellant shall be transmitted to the Trial Court along with TCR. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP para 1 to 6 SRA para 7 to end CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 38