- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:525 MFA No. 23212 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23212 OF 2011 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY NOW BY ITS ASST. MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, SUMANGALA COMPLEX, IIND FLOOR, LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI - 580 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. M. RAMALAXMI W/O. LATE M. SAMBASHIVARAO, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: SAJJAPURAM, TANUKU, DIST: WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PADESH PRESENTLY RESIDING AT VADDARAHATTI CAMP, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. 2. SATHYAKUMARI D/O. LATE SAMBASHIVARAO, AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: SAJJAPURAM, TANUKU, DIST: WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH, PRESENTLY AT VADDARAHATTI CAMP, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF TANUKU MUNICIPALITY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, TANUKU, DIST: WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH, TRACTOR REGD. NO.ABW:7814. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHANTAGOUDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:525 MFA No. 23212 of 2011 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAI IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 23.07.2010, PASSED IN W.C.A/F. NO.156/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COURT AT KOPPAL AND ETC., 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 appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning the judgment and award dated 30.07.2011 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Bailhongal, in MVC No.2284/2009 on the ground that the learned Commissioner does not have jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. 2. It is stated that the deceased was working as a driver employed under respondent No.3 in the vehicle belonging to respondent No.3 and died in the accident in the course of employment. Thus, the claim petition is filed before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation at Koppal, Dist. Koppal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:525 MFA No. 23212 of 2011 3. The learned Commissioner has awarded compensation putting liability on the appellant-insurance company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submitted that the accident was taken place in Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State and the deceased and the claimants were also of Andhra Pradesh State. Hence, the learned Commissioner, Koppal did not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition and grant compensation. Therefore, only on this ground that the learned Commissioner, Koppal had no jurisdiction to consider claim petition and the order passed is without territorial jurisdiction, he prays to allow the appeal. 5. Though, the accident was taken place in west Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State, the deceased and the claimants were native of Andhra Pradesh State. But it is stated that the claimants have migrated from Andhra Pradesh to Vaddarahatti camp, Gangavathi District, Koppal. The deceased might have worked under respondent No.3 in west Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh State. But after - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:525 MFA No. 23212 of 2011 demise of the deceased, the claimants being left with no other alternative way for the livelihood, have migrated for the native place Vaddarahatti camp, Gangavathi District, Koppal. Therefore, the claimants have become resident of Koppal District as above stated. The claim petition can be filed by the claimants in the jurisdictional Court, where the claimants were ordinarily residing in the concerned jurisdictional area in which jurisdictional Court the claim petition came to be filed. Therefore, there is no error of jurisdiction in filing claim petition and the same is rightly entertained by the learned Commissioner. Therefore, when there is no error of jurisdiction, the appeal filed by the insurance company is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. 6. The entire amount deposited by the Insurance Company shall be transferred to the trial Court. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE RKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 31