- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12023 MFA No. 22755 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22755 OF 2013 (WC-) BETWEEN: 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITEAD INIDA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY, REP. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPPOSITE RADHIKA TALKIES, RAGHAVACHARI ROAD, BELLARY, REP. BY ITS DIV. MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADV) AND: 1. SRI. AKBAR ALI S/O SHESHAVALI, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, R/O: DEVI NAGAR, BELLARY. 2. SRI. BASHU S/O MOHAMMED HUSSAI AGE: MAJOR, WARD NO.15, ROOPANGOODI ROAD, VENKATAMMA COLONY BELLARY, (OWNER OF THE LORRY NO.APPELLANT-04-T-4469) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUKUMAR V.A, ADV FOR R1, R2-ABSENT) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WC ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:31.05.2013 PASSED IN WCA.NF. NO.51/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,63,344/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12023 MFA No. 22755 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) 1. This Appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 31.05.2013 passed in WCA: NF No.51 of 2013 by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Sub Division- I, Ballari, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’, for short). 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: On 10.11.2012, the petitioner, while driving a lorry bearing registration No.AP.04/T-4469, as per the instructions and directions of Respondent No. 1/ Employer, met with an accident during the course and arising out of employment and sustained injuries in an accident. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act before the Commissioner. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition. 3. Respondent No.1- Employer filed a statement of objections admitting the relationship as an employer and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12023 MFA No. 22755 of 2013 employee between the petitioner and respondent No.1, admitted that the petitioner was paid Rs. 6,000 p.a. and admitted the occurrence of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the owner of the lorry/Employer. 4. The insurance company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that there exists no relationship of employer and employee between the owner/employer and the petitioner. It is also contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. 6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case examined himself as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3, and marked 17 documents as Exhibits P1 to P17. In rebuttal, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12023 MFA No. 22755 of 2013 the respondents before the tribunal, have neither led any oral evidence nor produced any documents. 7. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, awarded a total compensation of ₹1,63,344/- to the petitioner vide judgment and award dated 31.05.2013. 8. The insurance company challenging the award passed by the Commissioner, filed this appeal. 9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the disability at 30% assessed by the Commissioner is on the higher side. He also submits that the petitioner has not suffered any injury in the road traffic accident. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12023 MFA No. 22755 of 2013 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that to prove that the petitioner has suffered injuries, examined the Doctor as PW2. He has deposed that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 30% to the whole body, and further, there is no rebuttal evidence by the respondents before the tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and proper and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law: Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation acted judiciously in assessing the loss of earning capacity at 30% contrary to the documentary evidence on record? 14. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident and the injury sustained by the petitioner in the road - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12023 MFA No. 22755 of 2013 traffic accident arising in the course of and out of employment, and further, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the petitioner and the owner of the lorry as an employer and employee. The accident occurred during the course of and out of employment. The petitioner, to prove his case, examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the claim petition averments in the examination-in-chief, and he has produced 17 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P17. The petitioner, to prove that he has sustained injuries in the road traffic accident, examined the doctor as PW2, who has deposed that he had examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically and assessed the disability at 30%. The Commissioner has taken the disability at 30% which is on the higher side, though PW2 is not a treated doctor. This Court, considering the evidence of PW2, reassesses the disability of the petitioner at 20%. Considering the entire evidence on record, this Court reassesses compensation as follows: Loss of earning capacity is reassessed at Rs.1,08,896/-. Rs.4,500x60%=2,700/-. The relevant factor applicable to the age group of the petitioner is 201.66. (2,700x201.66x20%=1,08,896/-) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12023 MFA No. 22755 of 2013 15. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,08,896/- as against Rs.1,63,344/- awarded by the Commissioner. Thus, there is a reduction in the compensation awarded by the Commissioner. 16. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the negative. 17. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER i. The Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 31.05.2013 passed in WCA:NF No.51 of 2013 by the learned Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Sub Division-I, Ballari, is modified. iii. The petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,08,896/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after 1 month from the date of the accident till realization of the amount. The Office to transmit the amount in deposit and the TCR to the Commissioner concerned. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:12023 MFA No. 22755 of 2013 The Office to refund the excess amount, if any, in favour of the insurance company. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE kmv: CT: BSB