Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Smt.Padmavati And Ors on 3 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804
MFA No. 201741 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201741 OF 2019 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 102.
(POLICY ISSUING OFFICE CR.BIDAR
DOOR NO.8-10-135/1
OPP: NEHRU STADIUM BIDAR)
(VIDE POLICY NO.610403311710001529)
CODE NO.610403,
VALID FROM 16/5/2017 TO 15/05/2018)
Digitally signed ...APPELLANT
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH (BY SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. SMT. PADMAVATI
W/O HANUMANTH,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. SRI. HANUMANTH
S/O CHANDRAPPA,
AGED: 41 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804
MFA No. 201741 of 2019
HC-KAR
3. SRI.TUKARAM
S/O HANUMANTH
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: LABOUR,
4. MASTER UMESH
S/O HANUMANTH
AGE: 12 YEARS
OCC: STUDENT,
(MINOR STUDENT OF 12 YEARS
U/G HIS FATHER RESPONDENT NO.2)
ALL ARE R/O: H.NO.95, BLOCK NO.5,
MAREGEMMANA TEMPLE MANNAKHELLI,
TALUK: HUMNABAD,
DISTRICT: BIDAR. PIN CODE:585 330.
5. SRI. SAYED RAHAMATHULLAH
S/O SYED KALEEMULLA QUADRI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.1-62/13,
POST AND VILLAGE BAGDAL,
TALUK: BIDAR,
PIN CODE NO.585 401.
(OWNER OF THE AUTO NO.KA38/2129)
...RESPONDENTS
(R1, R2 AND R5 ARE SERVED;
NOTICE TO R3 IS HELD SUFFICIENT;
R4 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN E.C.A.NO.3/2018 ON THE
FILE FO THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804
MFA No. 201741 of 2019
HC-KAR
J.M.F.C., BIDAR AT BIDAR, AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 20.03.2019 PASSED IN E.C.A.NO.3/2018
BY THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C.,
BIDAR AT BIDAR.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 20.03.2019
passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bidar (for
short, 'Tribunal') in ECA No.3/2018, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel for appellant-
insurer submitted that respondent had filed claim application
under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act, stating that
Avinash S/o Hanumanth was employed by respondent no.1 as
driver in his auto bearing registration no.KA-38/2129 on
monthly wages of Rs.15,000/- and while he was on duty on
26.09.2017, it met with accident near Balamma Temple Bridge
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804
HC-KAR
near Bagdal. In said accident, Avinash sustained grievous
injuries and died during treatment.
3. On service of notice, employer and insurer entered
appearance and objected claim application denying claim
averments. Based on pleadings, Tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant no.2 examined himself as PW.1
and one Anil S/o Gundappa as PW.2 and got marked Exs.P1 to
11. Insurer examined one witness as RW.1 and did not mark
any documents.
4. On consideration, Tribunal held relationship of
employee, employer and insurer was established between
deceased and respondents no.1 and 2, that accident had
occurred in course of employment and out of employment and
claimants were entitled for compensation. It determined
monthly income of deceased @ Rs.7,000/-, his age as 20 years
by applying corresponding factor of 224.00 and arrived loss of
dependency at Rs.7,84,000/-. It held insurer is liable to pay
same along with interest @ 12% per annum from 31.10.2017.
Assailing same, this appeal was filed.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804
HC-KAR
5. It was submitted, insurer had specifically objected
to liability on ground that deceased did not have valid and
effective driving license to drive Auto at time of accident and
there was no effort on part of claimants to produce driving
license, even after application filed for direction to them to
produce R.C. book, permit, fitness certificate, tax paid receipt
and driving license was allowed. It was submitted, claimants
had produced all other documents except driving license.
Therefore, adverse inference ought to have been drawn. As
liability is fixed without verifying whether deceased had valid
and effective driving license, substantial question of law would
arise for consideration. On said grounds, sought for allowing
appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused
impugned judgment and award.
7. In this appeal by insurer, relationship of employee,
employer and insurer between deceased, respondents no.1 and
2, occurrence of accident during course of and out of
employment, death of Avinash in said accident and claimants
being entitled for compensation are not in dispute. Liability of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804
HC-KAR
insurer to pay compensation is challenged on ground of
deceased not possessing valid and effective driving license.
Though, learned counsel for appellant made available for
perusal certified copy of application filed by insurer for directing
respondent no.1/owner of vehicle to produce driving license of
deceased along with other documents and stated that
application was allowed, claimant produced all other documents
except driving license, it is seen that insurer had not issued any
notice to insured for production of driving license. No such
notice and proof of its service on insured was got marked by
insurer. Without such effort, application for direction was filed
directly before Tribunal. Though, same was allowed and
claimant did not produce driving license, it is seen that in his
deposition, PW-1 stated that deceased was possessing driving
license. No admission was elicited about deceased driving
vehicle without license. There is no effort on part of insurer to
establish said fact.
8. In view of above, Tribunal held insurer liable to pay
compensation as issuance of insurance policy and coverage of
vehicle as on date of accident were not disputed. Finding of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2804
HC-KAR
Trial Court cannot be said to be contrary to material on record
or perverse. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration. Consequently, following order:
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
MSR,NJ
Ct;Vk
