- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1392 OF 2020 (ECA) BETWEEN: SMT. CHANDRAMMA W/O LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT HORBYLU VILLAGE BELLUR GRAMA HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M.V MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. VRASHABARAJ JAIN S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OWNER OF THE TRACTOR AND TRAILER BEARING REG. NO.KA-15-T-6922-6923, R/AT PANCHA BASADI ROAD, HUNCHA VILLAGE HOSANAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANGER M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DIVISIONAL OFICE S.S. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, B.H. ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRASAD B.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B.A. RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.27.08.2019 PASSED IN ECA NO.16/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, ECC, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 27.08.2019 passed in ECA No.16/2015 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Shivamogga, (for short, 'the Commission') whereby the claim petition filed under the Employees’ Compensation Act came to be dismissed. 2. The claimant is the mother/dependent of deceased Naveen G., who was working as a coolie in the tractor-trailer unit bearing registration No.KA-15-T-6922-23 belonging to respondent No.1 and insured by respondent No.2. On 04.12.2014, the deceased accompanied the tractor-trailer for unloading maize at Thammadihalli village and while returning, the vehicle met with an accident near Kudi village and turtled, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 as a result, Naveen sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. 3. The claimant filed the claim petition before the Commission seeking compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act. The Commission, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, dismissed the claim petition holding that the claimant had failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant- employee as preferred this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel Sri. M.V. Maheshwarappa, for the appellant, learned counsel Sri. Prasad. B. for respondent No.1 and learned counsel Sri. B.A. Ramakrishna for respondent No.2. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the claimant primarily contended that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim solely on the ground that the employer-employee relationship was not proved by documentary evidence. It was submitted that in proceedings - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 under the Employees’ Compensation Act, strict rules of evidence are not applicable and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly established that the deceased was working as a coolie under respondent No.1. He further contended that the accident was caused while deceased was travelling in the tractor tailer along with a driver for unloading of maize belonging to respondent No.1. 6. It is further submitted that in the said accident, the driver of the tractor also sustained injuries. However at the instance of respondent No.1, he falsely deposed before the Commission that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the deceased being a stranger drove the same without his knowledge and permission. This aspect of the evidence is contrary to Ex.P14, the wound certificate. Further the owner of the vehicle, intentionally remained absent before the Commission by executing a power of attorney, in favour of his wife - PW1. The Commission without appreciating these aspects of the matter wrongly dismissed the claim petition. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the judgment of the Commission and contended that the Police had filed charge-sheet against the deceased himself and therefore the claimant is not entitled to any compensation. He further contended that the evidence of the RW2-driver of the tractor, categorically established that he was not driving the vehicle at the time of accident and the deceased being a stranger drove the same and caused accident. Further he also contended that absolutely there are no evidence on record to substantiate the employer-employee relationship between respondent No.1 and the deceased. In such circumstances he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. In the light of the rival contentions and the material available on record, the following point arises for consideration: "Whether the Commission was justified in dismissing the claim petition by holding that the claimant had failed to establish the employer- employee relationship between respondent No.1 and the deceased and that the accident did not arise out of and in the course of employment?" - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 9. As could be gathered from records, the accident in question and death of the deceased-Naveen are not in dispute. In order to prove the employer-employee relationship between the respondent No.1 and deceased, though no documents are placed before the Commission, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the mother and uncle of the deceased respectively, reveals that deceased was working as a coolie under respondent No.1 and had accompanied with the driver of the tractor-trailer for unloading maize on the relevant date. The testimonies of PWs.1 and 2, to the effect that the deceased was travelling in the tractor - trailer belonging to respondent No.1 on the relevant date for transport and unloading of maize has not been disproved in their cross-examination. 10. Generally in rural agricultural operations involving tractors and trailers, engagement of coolies is oral and informal, there cannot be any appointment orders, wage register or salary certificates for the coolie employees. 11. RW-1, wife of respondent No.1 denied the impugned employer-employee relationship and deposed that the deceased had unauthorisedly taken the ignition key kept in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 the tractor and driven the vehicle without permission, resulting in the accident. RW-2, the driver of the tractor, also supported the said version and deposed that the deceased had taken the key kept beneath the seat of the tractor and caused the accident. RW-2 also deposed to the extent that he had not sustained any injuries in the accident on the relevant date. 12. However, Ex.P14, the wound certificate of RW-2, reveals that he has sustained injuries on 04.12.2014 and got treated at PHC, Ayanur, Shivamogga. In the cross examination, though a suggestion was put to RW-2 that due to the accident he also sustained injuries and taken first aid treatment at Ayanur PHC, he denied the said suggestion. As such the testimony of RW-2 goes contrary to Ex.P14. The Commission, instead of drawing the necessary adverse inference from this material contradiction, discarded Ex.P14 on hyper-technical grounds that the document was not confronted to RWs.1 and 2 and that the MLC register of PHC, Ayanur had not been summoned. In proceedings under the Employees' Compensation Act, which is a beneficial piece of social welfare legislation, such a technical approach is wholly unwarranted. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 This contemporaneous medical record, Ex.P14, negates the version of the RW-2. 13. Further on the date of the accident the complaint is lodged by PW2, against one Sathyanarayana - the driver of the tractor-trailer unit. In the said compliant it is stated that at the time of accident the said Sathyanarayana was driving the tractor-trailer and the deceased was travelling in the tractor as a coolie to unload the maize belonging to respondent No.1. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered against the driver in Crime No. 220/2013 for offences punishable under Section 279 and 304A of IPC. Strangely, after investigation, placing reliance on the statement of owner of the tractor, the charge-sheet was filed against the deceased. Such a thing, once again creates doubt in the mind of this Court that the investigation and filing of charge-sheet against the deceased is done at the behest of the owner of the tractor. This aspect is also not properly appreciated by the Commission. 14. In such circumstances, on re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the Commission has adopted an unduly technical approach in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 appreciating the evidence. The evidence on record proves that the deceased being employee of respondent No.1, had accompanied the tractor-trailer in connection with the work of respondent No.1 and the accident occurred during such employment. Therefore, the death must be held to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Hence, the claimant shall be entitled for adequate compensation. 15. As regards the amount of compensation, the deceased was aged 24 years on the date of his death. In the absence of documentary proof of wages, the monthly wages are taken at Rs.8,000/-. 16. Under Section 4 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, in case of death, compensation is payable at 50% of monthly wages × relevant factor. Therefore the calculation of compensartion would be, Monthly wages = Rs.8,000/- 50% thereof = Rs…4,000/- Relevant factor for age 24 = 218.42 Compensation = Rs.4,000/- × 218.42 = Rs.8,73,680/- - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34766 MFA No. 1392 of 2020 The claimant is also entitled to interest at 12% per annum from the date of one month after the accident till its realization. ORDER 1. The appeal is allowed. 2. The judgment and award dated 27.08.2019 passed in ECA No.16/2015 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & Employees’ Compensation Commissioner, Shivamogga, is set aside. 3. The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.8,73,680/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of one month after the accident till its realization. 5. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest before the jurisdictional Commissioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/V