[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Prabhudas vs Govindappa on 16 December, 2025
-1-
MFA No.23254/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23254 OF 2013
BETWEEN
SRI PRABHUDAS S/O. BASAPPA,
AGED: ABOUT 29 YEARS, EX DRIVER,
R/O: SUDHA CROSS, NEAR CANTONMENT,
DIST: BELLARY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B.C. JNANAYYA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . GOVINDAPPA S/O. MAREPPA,
OWNER OF TRACTOR,
R/O: BADANHATTI,
TQ. AND DIST.: BELLARY.
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY, BELLARY.
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.12.16
16:42:11 +0530
(BY SRI RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE SERVED TO R1.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30 OF THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.04.2013, IN WC (NF)
NO.220/2007, PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB
DIVISION-II, BELLARY, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
MFA No.23254/2013
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 28.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
The unsuccessful claimant has filed this appeal under
Section 30 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923,
praying for allowing the appeal by setting aside the order
passed by the Labour Officer and Employees Compensation
Commissioner, Sub-Division-II, Ballari (for short, 'Labour
Officer'), in Case No.WC (NF) No.220/2007, dated
27.04.2013.
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks as they
were before the Labour Officer, for sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. The case of claimant before the Labour Officer is
that the claimant was working as driver under respondent
No.1, who is the owner of tractor bearing registration
No.KA-34/T-3735-3736. On 10.01.2007, on the instructions
of respondent No.1, claimant had been to load manure bags
to Ballari and then he went for unloading to Belagal and
after unloading, while returning to Ballari, at about
02.00 p.m., the steering rod of the tractor was broken and
tractor turtle into a ditch and because of that, claimant
sustained grievous injuries and admitted to Bandihatti
Primary Health Center and then shifted to VIMS Hospital,
Ballari and took treatment. Before the accident, he was hale
and healthy and because of the accident he is disabled to do
any work. Hence, he has filed claim petition before the
Labour Officer claiming compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.
4. On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 filed his
written statement, wherein he denied the petition
averments in toto, except admitting the employment of
claimant with him and he had been to Ballari and Belagal
and while coming back at 02.00 p.m., the accident
happened. However, he does not admit about the injuries
sustained by the claimant and further contented that, it is
validly insured with respondent No.2 and hence, prayed for
saddling liability on respondent No.2 if the Court comes to
the conclusion that claimant has sustained any injury in the
aforesaid accident.
5. On receipt of the notice, respondent No.2 insurer
appeared through its counsel and filed its written
statement, wherein it admitted about validity of the policy,
except that, denied all other averments made in the petition
and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. On behalf of claimant, the claimant was
examined as PW.1, examined the doctor as PW.2 apart from
marking Exs.P.1 to P.5 and closed his side. On behalf of
respondent No.2, insurance policy is marked as Ex.R.1.
7. After recording evidence of both the sides and
hearing arguments of both the sides, the Labour Officer
dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimant
failed to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident
arose out of the fault in the steering of the vehicle and
caused the accident and he sustained injuries in the course
of employment.
8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/claimant
has preferred the appeal under Section 30 of the
Workmen's Compensation Act. As per the first Proviso to
Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, only in
case of substantial question of law is involved, the appeal
shall lie to the High Court.
9. Heard the arguments of Sri B.C.Jnanayya,
learned counsel for appellant and Sri Ravindra R. Mane,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the appeal
papers and the original records.
10. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that
the claimant has produced substantial evidence before the
Labour Officer to show that he sustained injury in the
accident that had taken place when he was driving the
tractor, because, he was driving the tractor under the
employment of respondent No.1. He would further submit
that the doctor is examined as PW.2, who has issued
disability certificate, which establish that the claimant has
sustained functional disability. He was working as driver,
because of the fracture of tibia and right hand joint bones,
he is unable to do driving work. Hence, there is 100%
functional disability to the claimant.
11. Learned counsel for appellant would further
submit that respondent No.1 categorically admit the
employment of claimant under him and during subsistence
of said employment, at the time of discharging his duty as
driver, the claimant has sustained injuries and thus,
claimant is entitled for compensation. However, the tribunal
has not verified these things in a proper manner and there
is no proper appreciation of evidence and hence prayed for
allowing the appeal.
12. Learned counsel Sri Ravindra R. Mane, for
respondent No.2 would submit that the evidence produced
before the Labour Officer clearly and categorically establish
that the claimant has not lodged complaint and no charge
sheet is filed. Furthermore, MVI report is also not produced
to show that there was some problem in the vehicle in
question i.e., steering rod broken suddenly and that
resulted in turtle of the tractor. The tractor is not at all
examined by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Only the facts are
involved in the present case and no substantial question of
law is involved. Hence, the appeal itself is not maintainable.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of appeal by confirming the
order passed by the Labour Officer.
13. From the above facts, the substantial question of
law that would arose for consideration is as follows:
"Whether the Labour Officer has grossly
erred in appreciating the evidence on record and
in dismissing the claim petition?"
14. My finding to the above substantial question of
law is in the 'negative' for the following:
REASONS
15. The claim petition is filed before Labour Officer
claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the
claimant in the course of his employment on 10.01.2007
when he was coming towards Ballari from Belagal, by
unloading the fertilizer bags at about 02.00 p.m., the
steering rod of the tractor became cut and he lost his
control over the vehicle in question and the tractor turtle on
the ditch and thus, he sustained injury in the said accident.
16. To substantiate the above contention of claimant,
claimant has produced copy of complaint given by him to
police outpost, Cantonment C.B. Ballari, wound certificate
as per Ex.P.2, medical bill as per Ex.P.3 and certificate
issued by the doctor as per Ex.P.4.
17. On perusal of these documents, the main
contention of claimant is that after unloading fertilizer bags
while coming from Belagal towards Ballari, the steering rod
became broken and thus, he lost control over the tractor
and the tractor turtles on a ditch.
18. In this regard, the claimant has not produced
MVI report or any other document to show that the tractor
in question was damaged or its steering wheel became
broken. In the absence of MVI report or any other
document to substantiate the contention of claimant, it is
very difficult to say that claimant has sustained injury
because of breaking of steering rod of the tractor. Ex.P.2
wound certificate only reveals the injuries sustained by the
claimant in a road traffic accident. However, it does not
reveal the number of the vehicle or other details. Ex.P.3 is
the prescription of the doctor issued on 24.01.2007 by
Annapurna Medical Center and Ex.P.4 is the disability
certificate.
19. Unless the claimant establishes that his tractor's
steering rod was broken, which resulted in the accident, the
claimant is not entitled for the compensation for the injuries
sustained by him. However, no iota of evidence is produced
in that regard. If the complaint is given by the complainant
to police outpost and it is not forwarded to the concerned
police station to register the FIR, the only course open for
the claimant was to go to the police station and to lodge the
complaint; if they fail to receive it, then to approach higher
officials. However, he did not do so. No action has been
- 10 -
taken against the police official who has not forwarded his
complaint given to police outpost.
20. Furthermore, criminal case is not lodged and the
Motor Vehicle Inspector has not examined a tractor to say
that tractor in question was damaged, except producing the
Xerox copy of RC book of the tractor. Even no material is
produced to show that this tractor is involved in the present
accident.
21. Considering the above aspects in a proper
perspective, rightly the Labour Officer has dismissed the
petition of claimant. It needs no interference. Hence,
I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU
