Karnataka High Court
Sri H K Dinesh vs Sri.Veerappa on 14 February, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
MFA No. 3077 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3077 OF 2021 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
SRI H.K.DINESH
S/O.KALASAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT SUBASH ROAD
KOPPA TALUK-577 126
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.V.GANGI REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI VEERAPPA
S/O.LATE KUPPEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. SMT.BHAVANI
W/O.VEERAPPA
Digitally AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
signed by B
LAVANYA
Location: 3. ANNAPURNA
HIGH D/O.VEERAPPA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
KARNATAKA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
MULABAGILU VILLAGE
THALAVANI
DURVASAPURA POST
THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.V.SATEESHCHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
MFA No. 3077 of 2021
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923
PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
13.08.2020 PASSED IN ECA.NO.14/2014 BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS,
THIRTHAHALLI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging
the judgment and award dated 13.08.2020 passed in
ECA.No.14/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and Judicial
Magistrate First Class at Thirthahalli (for short 'the trial
Court').
2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per
their status before the trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 05.03.2014 at about 7.30 p.m. in the usual
course, one Santhosha had come for his work at Ammadi
Estate, Koppal Taluk. The appellant had a tender for road
work under the head 'Samruddhi Constructions'. It is
stated that the said Santhosha had come for his work on a
motor bike bearing registration No.KA-05-EJ 5656 to the
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
site and unfortunately, he met with an accident during the
course of his employment. Immediately, he was taken to
the Hospital, wherein he died.
3.1 It is stated that claimant Nos.1 and 2 are the
father and mother, claimant No.3 is the sister of deceased
Santhosha. He was working as a Site Engineer since six
years with the respondent and the said motor bike was
owned by the appellant. Pursuant to the death in the
accident, FIR came to be registered at Koppa Circle Police
Station in Crime No.39/2014. Hence, the claimants being
the legal representative of the deceased Santhosha, filed a
claim petition seeking compensation.
3.2 On service of notice, initially, the respondent was
placed ex parte and the judgment was passed in favour of
the claimants. Thereafter, a civil miscellaneous petition
came to be filed and the case was restored and contested.
3.3 The respondent appeared through his counsel
and filed detailed written statement denying the
averments made by the claimants, specifically, the
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
relationship of employer and employee, master and
servant and that the deceased Santhosha, at no point of
time, worked with the respondent. It was also pleaded
that the accident did not occur in the course of or out of
employment. Therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay
any compensation. It is also pleaded that there was no
relationship of employer and employee and Santhosha was
not paid any salary and wages. It is also stated that the
assertion made in the petition is vague, false and the
claimants have not come before the Court with clean
hands. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
3.4 On the basis of pleadings, the trial Court framed
the relevant issues for consideration.
3.5 In order to substantiate the issues and to
establish the case, the claimants got examined claimant
No.1 as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P14
with additional documents as Exs.P15 to P36. On the other
hand, the respondent examined himself as RW.1 and three
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
other witnesses as RWs.2 to 4 and got marked documents
as Exs.R1 to R5.
3.6 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and
documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned
counsels for both parties, the trial Court awarded
compensation of Rs.8,87,640/- with interest @ 12% p.a.
from the date of accident till realisation and apportioned
the compensation amount as stated in the judgment and
award.
3.7 Being aggrieved by the meager compensation
awarded by the trial Court, the appellant is before this
Court seeking to set-aside the judgment and award on the
ground that the same is illegal, perverse, arbitrary and
contrary to the materials placed on record.
4. This Court vide order dated 4.11.2022 formulated
the following substantial question of law for consideration
in this appeal:
"Whether the Commissioner was justified in
holding that there was an employer and
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
employee relationship between the appellant
and deceased Santhosh in the facts and
circumstances of the case?"
5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel
for the appellant that there is absolutely no relationship of
employer and employee between the appellant and the
deceased. The trial Court has not dealt with the basic
requirement as to whether the accident occurred during
the course of employment in the proper perspective and
erroneously came to the conclusion that the deceased was
in employment with the appellant as a Site Engineer and
that he died in the accident during the course of
employment. He further contends that there is absolutely
no piece of document produced by the claimants to show
any relationship of employer and employee and the trial
Court has committed a manifest error in accepting the
mere statement of the claimants that there exists a
relationship of employer and employee between the
appellant and the deceased, which is arbitrary, illegal and
the same requires to be set aside.
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
6. Learned counsel further contends that the trial
Court has committed a gross error by taking into
consideration and holding that the motorbike in which the
deceased traveled and met with the accident belonged to
the appellant, whereas failed to take into consideration
that the said motorbike was sold by the appellant to the
deceased and the documents were not transferred yet in
the name of the deceased. This fact has been
conveniently ignored by the trial Court and erroneously
came to the conclusion that since the motorbike belongs to
the appellant, there exists a relationship of employer and
employee between the appellant and the deceased. The
same is erroneous, arbitrary and on the basis of
assumptions and presumptions which is liable to be set
aside.
7. It is also vehement contention of learned counsel
for the appellant that the bank transactions of the
deceased Santhosh relied upon by the claimants clearly
establish that he was working in his own capacity with his
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
own licence doing civil contract work. The trial Court has
not given any weightage to such documents and wrongly
came to the conclusion that there exists relationship of
employer and employee between the appellant and the
deceased. Learned counsel further contends that even
according to the claimants, the deceased was working in
'Samruddhi Construction Enterprises'. However, no such
business is carried on by the appellant and no material is
placed before the Court to establish the same. It is also
contended that the Petition filed by the claimants is not
maintainable as it contravenes the provisions of Section 3
of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and there are
no ingredients to establish or prove the fact that there was
a relationship of employer and employee between the
appellant and the deceased and that the accident occurred
during the course of employment with the appellant and
therefore the question of liability of the appellant to pay
any compensation for the accident having occurred would
not arise. On these grounds, learned counsel seeks to
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
allow the appeal and consequently set aside the judgment
and award passed by the trial court.
8. Per contra, learned counsel representing the
claimants vehemently contends that the judgment &
award passed by the trial Court is in accordance with law
based on the materials placed before the Court, both oral
and documentary and infact large number of documentary
evidence are exhibited before the trial Court. It is also
vehement contention of learned counsel for the claimants
that Ex.P2 is a complaint registered before the Police
Station which is lodged by the appellant/employer,
wherein the appellant clearly admits that the deceased
Santhosh was his employee working as a Site Engineer
and the motorbike in which he was travelling belonged to
him. He further contends that it is on the basis of the
employment with the appellant, the deceased who was
working as a Site Engineer used to travel to various sites
as a Civil Contractor as that was his nature of job, with the
vehicle belonging to the appellant. Therefore, it is far-
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
fetched for the appellant to deny the relationship of
employer and employee after having lodged the complaint
immediately after the death of the deceased admitting the
fact of employment that the deceased was working as a
Site Engineer and visited the site by using the vehicle
belonging to him.
9. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the
claimants that salary was drawn and remuneration was
paid by the appellant/employer to the deceased Santhosh
and he produced State Bank of India accounts as per
Ex.P16 and Ex.P17, wherein address of the deceased is
mentioned as Santhosh c/o Dinesh .K., Samruddi
Constructions, Koppa. The other records which are
produced at Ex.P17, Ex.P30, Ex.P32 so also statement
from the Kaveri Gramina Bank at Ex.P36 disclose similar
address. The theory putforth by the appellant with regard
to there being no relationship of employer and employee
cannot be accepted and it runs contrary to the very
statement of the appellant who gave the complaint before
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
the jurisdictional Police Station as per Ex.P2. Therefore,
learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
10. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
11. It has to be stated that in the Proceedings under
Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act - 1952 ('EPF Act' for short)
are produced by the learned counsel for the claimants, the
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, after careful
analysis of the material on record by the order dated 20th
October 2021 held that the deceased Santhosh was
working in the establishment of the appellant/employer as
on date of his death and consequently, the appellant
/employer is responsible for carrying out statutory
compliance in respect of the said employee till his date of
death as provided for in EPF Act. It is also held that the
deceased was entitled for EPF benefits till his date of death
as stipulated in the EPF Act and Scheme and the dues
payable by M/s Dinesh Enterprises, in respect of the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
deceased Santhosh. Therefore, it is apparently seen that
the relationship of employer and employee between the
appellant and the deceased has been established before
the EPF Authority.
12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties in
the background of the circumstances stated hereinabove
and the materials placed before the trial Court as per
Ex.P1 to Ex.P36 and on perusal of the trial Court records
and the reasoning rendered by the trial Court, I am of the
considered opinion that the trial Court has gone into every
aspect in detail with regard to the relationship of employer
and employee including Sections 3 and 4 of the
Employee's Compensation Act and passed a well reasoned
and considered order by holding that there was a
relationship of employer and employee between the
appellant and the deceased Santhosh. The reasons
assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court
are just and proper and the appellant has not made out
any case to interfere with the well reasoned judgment
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
passed by the trial Court. The appellant has not made out
any ground to answer the substantial question of law
framed by this Court in his favour. I do not find any
reason to disagree with the reasoning made out by the
trial Court. Hence, the substantial question of law is
answered against the appellant. The appeal preferred by
the appellant does not merit consideration. Hence, it is
liable to be dismissed.
13. Vide order dated 23.11.2021, the appellant has
diligently deposited the award amount of Rs.8,87,640/-
before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Narasimharajapura. The same is liable to be released in
favour of the respondents/claimants in terms of the award
passed by the trial Court.
14. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The impugned judgment & award
dated 13th August 2020 passed by the
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Thirthahalli
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:6458
in ECA No.14/2014 is hereby
confirmed.
iii) The respondents/claimants would be
entitled for compensation of
Rs.8,87,640/- (Rupees eight lakhs
eighty-seven thousand six hundred
and forty only) with interest at 12%
per annum from the date of accident
i.e., 5.3.2014 till realization.
iv) The apportionment made by the
Tribunal shall stand intact.
v) The amount of Rs.8,87,640/-
deposited by the appellant before the
trial Court shall be released in favour
of the respondents/claimants, in terms
of the award passed by the trial Court.
vi) Registry is directed to transmit the
original records to the jurisdictional
Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
pages 1 to 5.. LB
6 to end .. GSS
