Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Mohammad Shafi S/O.Sheik Humayun on 26 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481
MFA No. 21671 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21671 OF 2013 (WC-)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BELLARY, REPRESENTED THROUGH
ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
OPPOSITE RADHIKA TALKIES,
RAGHAVACHARI ROAD, BELLARY,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADV)
AND:
1. SRI. MOHAMMAD SHAFI
S/O. SHEIK HUMAYUN
AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: LOADER,
R/O. TORANAGALLU, BELLARY.
2. SMT. LAXMIDEVI W/O. OBANAYAK
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:
R/O. DIVISION-1, CHALLAKERA,
MOHANKUMAR TQ: & DIST: BELLARY.
B SHELAR
...RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B (BY SRI. NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT)
SHELAR
Date: 2025.09.27
11:23:28 +0530
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1)OF WC ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:22.01.2013 PASSED IN WCA:CR
NO.345/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-2,
BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,65,538/- WITH
INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481
MFA No. 21671 of 2013
HC-KAR
AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE
ORDER.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
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 22.01.2013 passed in WCA.CR.No.345 of 2012 by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Sub- division-II, Ballari (for short, 'the Commissioner').
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
3. On 22.07.2008, the petitioner while working as a driver in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-18/5599, belonging to respondent No.1--the owner, it collided with another lorry bearing registration No.KA-01/B- 5549. He suffered injuries during the course and -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481 MFA No. 21671 of 2013 HC-KAR arising out of the employment and thus, sought for compensation.
4. The petitioner had earlier filed a claim petition in WC No.544 of 2008 and the said claim petition was withdrawn by the petitioner and filed the instant fresh claim petition on the same cause of action.
5. The insurance company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the second claim petition is not maintainable when the petitioner has withdrawn the earlier claim petition without the liberty to file a fresh claim petition. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the claim petition.
6. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-2 and another petitioner in WC No.344 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481 MFA No. 21671 of 2013 HC-KAR was examined as PW-1, examined the doctor as PW-3 and marked 13 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-13.
8. On the other hand, the insurance company has not examined any of its officers, however, marked one document as Exhibit R2-1 i.e., the insurance policy.
9. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of ₹1,65,538/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after one month from the date of accident till the realisation of the amount.
10. The insurance company, aggrieved by the impugned order, has filed this appeal.
11. Notice was issued to the respondents/petitioner.
Despite service of notice, they remained unrepresented.
12. Head the learned counsel for the insurance company. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481 MFA No. 21671 of 2013 HC-KAR
13. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that prior to the filing of the instant claim petition, the petitioner had filed a claim petition in WC No.544 of 2008 and the said claim petition was withdrawn by the petitioner without reserving any liberty to file a fresh claim petition on the same cause of action. Therefore, he submits that the second claim petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and the said aspect was not considered by the Commissioner and committed an error in passing the impugned order. He also submits that the disability assessed by the Commissioner and the interest awarded are on the higher side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.
14. This Court vide order dated 09.02.2023 admitted the appeal. Following are the substantial questions of law that arise for consideration in this appeal: -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481 MFA No. 21671 of 2013 HC-KAR
(i) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation acted judiciously in entertaining the second claim petition, ignoring the fact that the earlier claim petition was dismissed in the year 2008 and a fresh claim petition was not maintainable on the same cause of action?
(ii) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was justified in assessing the loss of earning capacity at 35%?
Substantial Questions of Law No.1:
15. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and also the petitioner having sustained the grievous injuries in the road traffic accident, during the course and arising out of the employment. Further, the petitioner has led the evidence to prove the relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1 and the petitioner. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481 MFA No. 21671 of 2013 HC-KAR
16. The Commissioner, considering the entire evidence on record, has rightly recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and also that there exists a relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1 and the petitioner, and he sustained grievous injuries in the road traffic accident.
17. Earlier, the petitioner filed a claim petition under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1926 in WC No.544 of 2008. He filed a memo seeking leave of the Commissioner to withdraw the said claim petition. The claim petition was dismissed as withdrawn and the claim petition was not decided on merits.
18. Subsequently, the petitioner filed the instant claim petition claiming compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Commissioner has rightly held that the earlier claim petition was not decided on merits and it was withdrawn, as such, the petitioner is -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481 MFA No. 21671 of 2013 HC-KAR entitled for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and rightly allowed the claim petition filed by the petitioner.
19. Mere dismissal of the first claim petition as withdrawn or on any other technical ground would not debar the petitioner from filing a subsequent petition. The Commissioner has rightly ignored the dismissal of earlier claim petition. In view of the same, I do not find any error in the impugned judgment entertaining the subsequent claim petition.
20. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial question of law No.1 in the affirmative. Substantial Questions of Law No.2:
21. The petitioner examined the doctor as PW-3, who has opined that the petitioner has suffered a permanent disability. The Commissioner considering the evidence of PW-3 has assessed the disability at 35%. The -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481 MFA No. 21671 of 2013 HC-KAR findings recorded by the Commissioner insofar as the disability is concerned, it is being supported by the evidence of the doctor/PW-3 and the medical records. Hence, the Commissioner was justified in assessing the disability at 35%. The Commissioner was justified in passing the judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned order.
22. In view of the above discussion, substantial question No.2 is answered in the affirmative.
23. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER (I) The appeal is dismissed.
(II) The judgment and order dated 22.01.2013 passed by the Commissioner for the Workmen's Compensation, is hereby confirmed.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13481
MFA No. 21671 of 2013
HC-KAR
(III) The Registry is directed to
transfer the amount in deposit
and the TCRs to the
Commissioner, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
RK
CT: BSB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9