Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri. Irappa S/O.Adiveppa Kotagi on 27 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 22821 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO. 22821 OF 2010 (WC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SRINATH COMPLEX, HUBLI.
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO.2B, UNITY BUILDING,ANNEXED
P.KALINGA RAO ROAD,
BANGALORE-5600027.
BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. IRAPPA
S/O.ADIVEPPA KOTAGI
AGE: 33 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER CUM COOLIE,
R/O: HALLADAKERI, LAXMESHWAR,
Digitally signed AT PRESENT PATIL GALLI, HUBLI.
by ROHAN
HADIMANI T
ROHAN Location:
HADIMANI DHARWAD
T Date:
2022.06.28
2. SMT. LALITAMMA
09:57:09
+0530 W/O. KARIBASAPPA,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF
LORRY NO.KA-17, 8553,
R/O: S.K.ROAD,
LINES NO.116/B,
-2-
MFA No. 22821 of 2010
KIRAWADI LAYOUT,
DAVANAGERE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
WCA.NF.No.66 OF 2005 ON THE FILE OF THHE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION DHARWAD DISTRICT, SUB-Dn.-II, HUBLI
AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.01.2009 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the insurer of
the offending Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-
17/8553 calling in question the legality and
correctness of the Judgment and Order dated
13.01.2009 in WCA.No.66/2005 by the Labour Officer
and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,
Dharwad District, Sub-Dn.-II, Hubli.
MFA No. 22821 of 2010
2. The brief facts are that, claimant was
working as driver-cum-hamali in lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-17/8553 owned by Smt.Lalitamma
W/o. Karibasappa and was insured with the appellant
herein and on 15.07.2005, while claimant-driver-
cum-hamali was proceeding to Bangalore from
Hubballi, lorry dashed another lorry bearing
Registration No.GJ-1/AT/9473 which resulted in
grievous injuries to the claimant.
3. On claim petition being filed, the owner-
employer Smt. Lalitamma W/o. Karibasappa filed her
Statement of Objections. As could be seen from the
statement of objections filed by her available in the
records, the claimant was working as Hamali in the
offending lorry. The appellant filed the Statement of
Objections resisting claim petition denying the
material averments in the claim petition.
MFA No. 22821 of 2010
4. During trial, the claimant examined himself
as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked, claimant
has also examined the medical practioner as PW2 and
got marked Exhibits P4 to P5. Respondent did not
examine any witness but policy of insurance was
marked as Exhibit R1.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both
sides and perusing the records, the learned
Commissioner allowed the claim petition in part and
granted a compensation of Rs.43,675/- along with
interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from
30 days from the date of award till the date of
payment.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company contended that the claimant was a
gratuitous passenger in the lorry and there was no
employer-employee relationship between insured-
owner of the vehicle and the claimant and therefore,
MFA No. 22821 of 2010
the learned Commissioner has no jurisdiction to
entertain the petition and appeal is entitled to be
allowed.
7. Learned counsel for the claimant per
contra, contended that on appreciating the entire
materials produced before him, the learned
Commissioner has come to the conclusion that there
was employer-employee relationship between insured
and the claimant and therefore, has rightly awarded
the compensation and such finding being one of fact,
is not entitled to be set-aside in an appeal filed under
Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act,
1923 and the appeal should be dismissed.
8. I have carefully perused the records and
considered the submission made on both the sides.
The claim petition proceeded on the allegation that the
claimant was working as driver-cum-hamali. On
15.07.2005 while the offending vehicle was being
MFA No. 22821 of 2010
driven by one Ganesh and the same met with an
accident resulting in grievous injuries to the claimant
and since it was an employment related injury, he is
entitled to the compensation. A perusal of the records
show that the insured-owner of the vehicle has filed a
detailed Statement of Objections in which she has
admitted that the claimant was working as a Hamali in
the lorry in question under her. There was nothing
produced in the evidence so as to dispute the version
of the insured. Learned Commissioner after
appreciating the entire materials on record has
recorded a finding that the employer-employee
relationship between the insured-owner and the
claimant has been established and I do not find any
ground to interfere with the same. Accordingly, this
appeal is devoid of merits and I proceed to pass the
following:
MFA No. 22821 of 2010
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The amount in deposit, if any, before
this Court, shall be transmitted to the
Court of learned jurisdictional Senior
Civil Judge along with the records
forthwith.
iii) No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH
