Karnataka High Court
Basareddy S/O Narsitreddy ... vs M/S Matta Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd., And ... on 17 June, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131
MFA No. 200171 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200171 OF 2021 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
BASAREDDY
S/O NARSIREDDY CHINNAPPALLI,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: NOW RESIDING AT MOHD. GOUSE,
OLD JEWARGI ROAD,
KALABURAGI - 585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. M/S MATTA ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD.,
HOUSE NO.12-11-55,
NEAR R.T.O., P.W.D., PVT LIMITED,
ARAB MOHALLA, RAICHUR,
DIST: RAICHUR - 585 401.
Digitally signed 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
by RAMESH
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
MATHAPATI
SANGAMESHWAR COLONY,
Location: HIGH KALABURAGI - 585 102.
COURT OF ...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA (BY SRI UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED 23.06.2018 PASSED E.C.A. NO.21/2015 ON THE
FILE OF THE COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
KALABURAGI AND TO GRANT THE COMPENSATION OF RS.5,50,000/-
AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131
MFA No. 200171 of 2021
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
There is a delay of 580 days in filing appeal.
I.A.no.1/2021 is filed for its condontation.
2. Sri Bapugouda Siddappa, learned counsel for
appellant submits that appeal was filed by husband of deceased
challenging judgment and award dismissing claim application
on ground of failure by applicant to establish relationship of
employer and employee between deceased and respondent
no.1.
3. It was submitted that appellant's wife Shusheelamma
was working as a coolie in lorry bearing registration no. KA-
36/3019 belonging to respondent no.1 on monthly wages of
Rs.4,000/- per month and daily bhatta of Rs.50/-. It was
submitted that while she was on duty, on 01.04.2002, vehicle
was proceeding near Borbonda gate, it met with accident
resulting in death of Shusheelamma on spot. On account of loss
of dependency, appellant filed application under provisions of
Workman Compensation Act.
4. Despite service of notice, respondent no.1-
owner/employer, did not appear and was placed ex-parte.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131
HC-KAR
Respondent no.2-insurer appeared and filed written statement
denying age, occupation and income of deceased. It also
disputed relationship of employee and employer between
deceased and respondent no.1 and about occurrence of
accident during course of employment. It contended that as per
FIR and charge sheet, deceased, her husband and others were
proceeding in lorry to attend Sharanabasaveshwar Jatra,
carrying passengers in goods vehicle, in violation of terms and
conditions of policy issued by insurer. It also contended that
driver of lorry was not holding valid and effective driving
license. It however, admitted issuance of policy, its coverage as
on date of accident.
5. On said pleadings, Tribunal framed following:
Issues
1. Whether the petitioner proves that his wife
Shusheelamma died on 01.04.2022 while she was
proceeding in a Lorry bearing No.KA-36/3019 during the
course of her employment?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation? If so, to what extent?
3. What order or award?
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131
HC-KAR
6. Appellant/applicant examined himself as PW-1 and
got marked 4 documents as Ex.P-1 to P4. Respondent did not
lead any evidence.
7. On consideration, Tribunal answered issue no.1 in
negative and issue no.2 as not surviving for consideration and
issue no.3 led to dismissing claim application. Aggrieved by
same, this appeal is filed.
8. Learned counsel for appellant submitted, as owner of
insured vehicle was placed ex-parte, claimant had difficulty in
establishing relationship of employer and employee. He prayed
for one more opportunity to establish relationship by remitting
matter back to Tribunal. It was also submitted, since,
respondent no.1/owner was custodian of record, he would be
under obligation to establish whether assertions made by
claimant/applicant about deceased being employee of
respondent no.1 were true or false by production of records.
Since, respondent no.1 remained ex-parte, adverse inference
ought to have drawn. Insofar as delay in filing appeal, it was
submitted, appellant was poor agriculturist facing financial
difficulty and other hardships. Due to same, appeal could not
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131
HC-KAR
be preferred in time. On above ground, submits that substantial
question of law arises for consideration and pledged for
admitting and allowing appeal.
9. On other hand, Sri Uday P Honguntikar, learned
counsel for insurer would oppose appeal. It was submitted,
there was no proper explanation of delay and explanation
offered would not constitute reasonable cause. Even on merits,
it was submitted that burden to establish relationship of
employer and employee would be on applicant and on failure to
produce any material to prove said relationship, Tribunal rightly
dismissed application. Rejection would therefore be on finding
of fact and no substantial question of law would arise for
consideration. On above ground, sought for dismissing appeal.
10. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned
judgment and award.
11. From above, since, claimant is in appeal challenging
dismissal of claim application, points that would arise for
consideration are:
"1) Whether appellant has assigned sufficient
reason for condonation of delay?" if so:-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131
HC-KAR
2) Whether award passed by Tribunal suffers
from perversity and gives rise to any substantial
question of law?
Points no.1 and 2:
12. As noted above appeal is belated by 580 days. In
affidavit filed in support of application, appellant has rather
cryptically stated that appeal could not be filed within limitation
period due to financial difficulty and poverty. There is no
explanation about not making any efforts to avail legal aid. It is
settled legal principle that it is not quantum of delay, but cause
that requires to be examined while considering application for
condonation of delay and if cause was beyond control of
applicant, then application deserved to be considered liberally.
Normally, in case of claimants appeal this Court liberally
condoned delay denying interest for delayed period. Taking
note of fact that, no objections are filed controverting
assertions, delay is condoned.
13. It is seen, tribunal framed issues casting burden on
claimant/applicant to establish that accident occurred during
course of and out of employment. In order to discharge burden
applicant examined himself as PW.1. Documents relied on are
copy of FIR/Complaint, Post Mortem Examination Report, Motor
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3131
HC-KAR
Vehicle Inspector's Report and Charge Sheet. It is not
explained as to how they would be of no assistance to establish
relationship between deceased and owner of lorry.
14. In fact, tribunal observed that police investigation
records would indicate that deceased was traveling as
unauthorized passenger along with 16 others in lorry to attend
Sharana Basaveshwar Jatra. Except above, no other material is
placed to establish relationship. Even driver or other co-
employees are not examined to discharge burden under issue
no.1. Under such circumstances and as material on which
applicant relied would run contrary to claim, tribunal proceeded
to answer issue no.1 in negative and consequently, dismissed
application. Since finding of tribunal is based on proper
appreciation of material on record and finding recorded would
be one of fact. Therefore, no substantial question of law would
arise for consideration. Accordingly, point no.2 is answered
against appellant.
Consequently, appeal is dismissed
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
