- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5140 MFA No. 24997 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA MFA NO. 24997 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, HUBLI, REPRESENTED BY ASST. MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. RATNAMALA G. H, ADV. FOR SRI. B. M. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BASAVARAJ S/O. NAGAPPA BARKER, AGE 29 YRS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O.YALAVAGI VILLAGE, TQ: SAVANUR. 2. GOUSEMOHIDDIN TASUDDIN HARDEWALE, AGE MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O.MANGALAWAR PETH, SAVANUR, (OWNER OF THE LORRY). …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 SERVED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI IN W.C 191/2010, DATED 18.05.2012 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5140 MFA No. 24997 of 2012 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This appeal is field by the Insurer against the order passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmens Compensation Haveri District, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as “the Commissioner”) under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, dated 18.05.2012 in W.C. No.191/2010, awarding compensation to respondent No.1. 2. On 10.03.2025, this appeal was admitted for consideration of the following substantial questions of law: (i) Whether, the Commissioner is justified in awarding the compensation to the injured / claimant, which is totally against the provisions of Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923? (ii) Whether, the Commissioner is justified in awarding the compensation to the injured / claimant, when the Police have prosecuted the injured / claimant, in Crime No.146/10 punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 338 of IPC for rash driving in a manner endangering the human life? (iii) Whether, the Commissioner is justified in awarding the compensation to the injured / claimant, for the wrong-deeds committed by himself?” - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5140 MFA No. 24997 of 2012 3. Notice issued to the respondents was served; however, none appeared on their behalf. 4. The case of the claimant / respondent No.1 is that, he was working as a drier under respondent No.2 and was driving a lorry belonging to respondent No.2; on 08.06.2010. Claimant No.1 was driving the lorry bearing Registration No.GDZ-6941 from Savanur towards Hubballi. The lorry met with an accident near Tirumalakoppa cross on P.B. Road. As a result of the accident, the driver of the lorry, along with four cleaners, sustained both grievous and simple injuries. A complaint was lodged with the Police, leading to the registration of crime in Crime No.146/2010. After investigation, a charge was filed in connection with the said accident. 5. The driver and cleaners filed a claim petition before the Commissioner appointed under the Employee’s Compensation Act. The Commissioner allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5140 MFA No. 24997 of 2012 Rs.2,01,523/- as per the provisions of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short “the Act, 1923”). 6. The primary contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver i.e., claimant No.1. Since, he sustained injuries due to his own negligence; he is not entitled to claim compensation and cannot hold the owner or the insurer of the vehicle liable for compensation. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant emphasizes her argument based on Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, which reads as follows: 3(1)(b)(ii) the wilful disobedience of the [employee] to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of [employee], or 8. The willful disobedience of an employee to an order expressly given or to a rule expressly framed for the purpose of ensuring the safety of employees. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the said - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5140 MFA No. 24997 of 2012 provisions, claimant No.1 disobeyed his implied duty to drive the vehicle with due care and caution He violated the duty by driving the lorry rashly and negligently, resulting in the accident. Therefore, he is not entitled to the compensation. This argument was not considered by the Commissioner, who erroneously passed the order awarding compensation in favor of respondent No.1 / claimant. Hence, the appellant prays for the order to be set aside. 9. The primary objective of the Employee’s Compensation Act is to provide compensation to an employee, who sustains injuries in an accident during the course of employment. The benevolent intent of this Act is to ensure that when an employee accidentally sustains injuries, suffers loss of a limb, or dies during the course of employment, the employee or their family members receive reasonable and appropriate compensation. 10. Section 3 of the Act reads as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5140 MFA No. 24997 of 2012 3. Employer's liability for compensation.- (1) If personal injury is caused to [an employee] by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter: Provided that the employer shall not be so liable,- (a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the [employee] for a period exceeding [three] days; (b) in respect of any [injury, not resulting in death [or permanent total disablement] caused by] an accident which is directly attributable to- (i) the [employee] having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or (ii) the wilful disobedience of the [employee] to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of [employee], or (iii) the wilful removal or disregard by the [employee] of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of [employees] 11. As per Section 3(1) of the Act, 1923 if an employee sustains injuries in an accident that arises out of and in the course of employment, the employer shall be - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5140 MFA No. 24997 of 2012 liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the law. The term accident is not defined under the Employee’s Compensation Act and must be interpreted under the General Clauses Act. In this case, neither party has contended that claimant / respondent no.1 willfully and deliberately drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner solely to claim the compensation. The allegation against him is that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the accident had taken place. However, nowhere in the prosecution records is it stated that respondent No.1 acted willfully. 12. During the cross-examination of claimant / respondent No.1 his testimony before the Commissioner was denied, and it was also disputed that he was the driver of the said lorry or that he held valid licence to drive such class of vehicle. Furthermore, it was never suggested to him that he deliberately or willfully caused the accident. There are no material evidence to support the contention of the appellant that the accident was caused willfully or - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5140 MFA No. 24997 of 2012 deliberately by the claimant / respondent No.1. In these circumstances, as per Section 3(1) of the Act, 1923, he is entitled to compensation. 13. It is not the case of the appellant that in spite of the direction of the owner of the vehicle, he took the vehicle on that day because of which the accident had taken place. Section 3(1)(b)(ii) of the Act pertains to the acts committed by an employee contrary to a warning or direction given by the employer. The act of the claimant does not fall under this category. Therefore, the contention of the appellant is not tenable. 14. In view of the aforementioned reasons, the substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VNP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1