Karnataka High Court
Afzal S/O Imamasab Bhatewale vs Sameer S/O Imam Bhate on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
MFA No. 24779 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24779 OF 2012
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101521 OF 2014
IN MFA NO. 24779/2012:
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT PLAZA,
OPP: SBI ZONAL OFFICE,
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI AFZAL IMAMSAB BATEWALE,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER NOW NIL,
R/O. RAI GALLI, LONDA,
TALUK: KANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
2. SHRI SAMEER IMAM BHATE,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.11 09:47:10
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.H.NO.1072, AVANTI NAGAR,
+0000
USGAON, PONDA, GOA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE W.C. ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 09.07.2012
PASSED IN WCA/SR/42/2010 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
SUB-DIVISION-2, BELGAUM & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
MFA No. 24779 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO. 101521/2014:
BETWEEN:
SHRI AFZAL
S/O IMAMASAB BHATEWALE,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, NOW NILL,
R/O: RAI GALLI, LONDA, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI SAMEER
S/O IMAM BHATE,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.1072, AVANTI NAGAR,
USAGAON, PONDA,
DIST: PANAJI, STATE: GOA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCED THE
COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I BELGAUM, IN KA
PA KA / SR-42/2010 DATED 09.07.2012 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
MFA No. 24779 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Challenging award dated 09.07.2012 passed by Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division 2, Belagavi1 in WCA/SR/42/2010, these appeals are filed.
3. MFA no.24779/2012 is by Insurer, while MFA no.101521/2014 is filed by workman.
4. Sri Suresh S. Gundi, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by Insurer challenging award on substantial question that award was passed even when workman failed to establish relationship of employer and employee; failed to establish loss of earning capacity as PW2- doctor admitted he had not assessed loss of earning capacity and award was passed ignoring violation of policy conditions as it was mentioned in FIR vehicle was used for hire/reward by receiving fare of Rs.1,600/- from passengers. In support of their submission, learned counsel for Insurer relied upon 1 For short, 'Tribunal' -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757 MFA No. 24779 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014 HC-KAR decision of this Court in MFA No.2011/2010 disposed off on 06.03.2018 and prayed for allowing appeal.
5. On other hand, Sri HR Latur, learned counsel for workman opposed appeal filed by Insurer. Pressing appeal by workman, it was submitted while working as driver in Car no.GA-02/J-2899 belonging to Employer on monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and daily bhatta of Rs.100/- and driving it as per instructions on 03.10.2008 near Mollem, it met with accident with oncoming tipper lorry. In accident, workman sustained grievous injuries and despite treatment at Bambolim Hospital, Goa and later at private Hospitals at Belagavi and Goa, he did not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim under provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 19232, before Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Belagavi.
6. After service of notice and entering appearance, Employer did not file objections. Only Insurer filed objections disputing claim application on all counts. 2 For short, 'WC Act' -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757 MFA No. 24779 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014 HC-KAR
7. Based on pleadings, Commissioner framed following issues:
(1) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £Àµ×À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1923gÀ PÀ®A 2(1)(J£ï) ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÉÃ?
(2) EzÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀªÅÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ¢AzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄÃ? (3) C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀjUÉ JµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìVzÀݪÀÅ? (4) C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À JµÀÄÖ? (5) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ°è PÉýgÀĪÀµÄÀ Ö ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÉÃ?
(6) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §rØ ºÁUÀÆ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÉÃ?
(7) DzÉñÀªÁzÀ°è ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£À, §rØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä AiÀiÁgÀÄ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÀÄ?
(8) F §UÉÎ DzÉñÀªÉãÀÄ?
8. In trial, workman examined himself as PW1 and Dr. Satish D Patil as PW2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P10. In rebuttal, Insurer examined its official as RW1 and got marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1.
9. On consideration, Commissioner answered issues in favour of workman and held Insurer liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,01,824/- with interest at 12% per annum from 30 days after date of award. Aggrieved, both Insurer and Workman were in Appeal.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757 MFA No. 24779 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014 HC-KAR
10. It was submitted, though workman stated he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.100/- as Bhatta, Commissioner considered monthly income at only Rs.3,500/-. Further, Commissioner erred in granting interest from 30 days after award contrary to statute. Therefore, substantial question of law arose for consideration and sought allowing appeal. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Golla Rajanna and Ors. v. The Divisional Manager and Ors.3 and North East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha4.
11. Sri GR Turamari, learned counsel for Employer submitted, though objections were not filed before Commissioner, Employer had admitted relationship of employer-employee in objections filed in Insurer's appeal. In view of same, no substantial questions of law arose in Insurer's appeal and sought for its dismissal.
12. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused award, certified copies of pleadings and deposition made available by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer. 3 (2017) 1 SCC 45 4 AIR 2018 SC 5593 -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757 MFA No. 24779 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014 HC-KAR
13. At outset, it is seen, these appeals are under Section 30 of WC Act, which proscribes appeals except on substantial question of law. Substantial questions of law propounded by Insurer are failure to establish relationship of Employer-Employee, passing of award even when Doctor had not assessed loss of earning capacity and fastening of liability on Insurer ignoring violation of terms and conditions of policy. While in workman's appeal substantial question of law propounded is about award of interest being contrary to law.
14. Perused of police investigation records i.e., complaint, FIR, Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and Panchanama marked as Exs.P1 to P4, as well as wound certificate, discharge summary, driving license, disability certificate, school leaving certificate and X-rays, reveals reference to injured as driver of Car. While giving finding about relationship of Employer-Employee, Commissioner not only adverted to assertion in pleading, but also its corroboration in police investigation records. Based on same, Commissioner held relationship of Employer and employee as proved. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757 MFA No. 24779 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014 HC-KAR
15. Though, attention of this Court is drawn to admission by workman about non-production of document to substantiate relationship and wages paid, same would not render findings without any basis or contrary to material on record. In decisions relied by counsel for workman, such findings are held to be finding of fact.
16. Even insofar as loss of earning capacity, admission referred to above is by PW2-Dr.Satish D. Patil, that he had not assessed loss of earning capacity, he being a qualified Medical Practitioner, within meaning of terms of Section 4(1)(c) of WC Act. But PW-2 has assessed permanent physical disability sustained by workman. He also noted loss of grip strength due to loss of muscle mass. When there is no dispute about workman sustaining injuries to both his upper limbs and disability sustained consequent to loss of muscle strength. Considering occupation of workman herein i.e. driving requiring usage of both hands, acceptance of assessment of physical disability as functional disability by Commissioner cannot be stated without basis or contrary to material on record. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757 MFA No. 24779 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014 HC-KAR
17. Further contention about violation of policy condition is based on averment in complaint by brother of one of passengers in Car, that they were travelling by paying fare of Rs.1,600/- and hiring Car as taxi. Firstly, there is no corroboration of said assertion. No notice is issued by Insurer about violation of terms of insurance. In any case, this being claim under provisions of WC Act, defences available in respect of claims under Motor Vehicles Act cannot be pressed into service herein. On above reasoning, contention requires rejection.
18. Insofar as claimant's appeal, though workman stated that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month apart from Rs.100/- per day which would Rs.7,000/- per month, as on date of accident, i.e. on 03.10.2008, maximum income that could be considered under Section 4 (1) (B) of WC Act was Rs.4,000/-. When no records were produced to substantiate income or payment, Commissioner assessed it at Rs.3,500/- based on material on record. Same would be a finding of fact not amenable for interference.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757 MFA No. 24779 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014 HC-KAR
19. However, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Sujatha (supra) referring to its earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata and Anr.5 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Siby George and others6, holding interest would be payable from 30 days after incident, direction by Commissioner would be contrary to statute. On said substantial question of law, claimant's appeal is allowed, holding Insurer liable to pay interest at 12% per annum from 30 days from date of incident (03.10.2008), i.e. from 04.11.2008.
20. For above reasoning, decision relied on by insurer would not be applicable. Hence, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal in MFA no.24779/2012 filed by Insurer is dismissed.
(ii) Appeal in MFA no.101521/2014 filed by workman is allowed in part only insofar as clarifying that interest at 12% would be 5 (1976) 1 SCC 289 6 (2012) 12 SCC 540
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757 MFA No. 24779 of 2012 C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014 HC-KAR payable from 30 days after date of incident i.e. from 04.11.2008.
(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to Tribunal for disbursal.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE SMM, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11