Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Company Limited vs D M Inatulla S/O D M Faizulla on 24 November, 2025
-1-
MFA No.23281/2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.23281 OF 2013
BETWEEN
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
BELLARY. REP. BY DEPUTY MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
ARIHANT PLAZA,
KUSUGAL ROAD, KESHWAPUR HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI G.N.RAICHUR, ADVOCATE.)
AND
1. SRI D.M. INATULLA S/O. D.M. FAIZULLA
AGE: 40 YRS, OCC: EX-DRIVER
R/O. KOTTUR ROAD BYPASS,
TQ: KUDALGI.
2. SRI H.S. SHAFIULLA KHAN
Digitally signed
S/O. H. MOHAMMED KHAN
by BHARATHI
HM
Location: HIGH
AGE: NOT MENTIONED OCC: OWNER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
OF CAR NO. KA-31/M-1983,
Date:
2025.11.25
10:12:40 +0530
R/O. KSRTC BUS STAND KUDALGI
DIST: BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RESHMA MADIWALAR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
NOTICE SERVED TO R2.)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.04.2013, PASSED IN
-2-
MFA No.23281/2013
W.C.N.F.NO.500/2007, ON FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-
DIVISION-2, BELLARY, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITH COSTS
AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER AS MAY BE DEEMED FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 14.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)
The insurance company has preferred this appeal
under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923, praying for setting aside the award passed by the
Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Sub Division-II, Ballari, (in short, labour
officer) in W.C.(NF) No.500/2007, dated 27.04.2013 on the
points of liability and quantum of compensation.
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as
they were before trial Court for sake of convenience and
clarity.
3. The petitioner has filed the petition before the
labour officer, praying for compensation in the accident that
had taken place on 27.09.2005 at 10.50 p.m. in front of the
house of Vaidar Anandappa at Kudligi-Gudikote Road, in
Kudligi. It is stated in the petition that he was working as
driver of the car bearing registration No.KL-31/M-1893
under the employment of respondent No.1; as per the
directions and order of respondent No.1, he was going in
the said car as driver in front of the house of Vaidara
Anandappa. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration
No.KL-35/4496, being ridden by its rider was going in front
of his car; rider of said motorcycle suddenly applied brake
and the appellant could not control the vehicle and dashed
against the motorcycle and thereby the accident happened.
On next day of the accident, the claimant has taken
treatment at Government Hospital, Kudligi and also in
private hospital; due to the accident, claimant has suffered
dislocation of right shoulder joint and other two simple
injuries and there is permanent disability to him; he cannot
work as he was working earlier. Hence, prayed for allowing
the petition by contending that respondent No.1 is the
owner cum his employer and respondent No.2 is the insurer
of the said car.
4. After receipt of the notice of this petition,
respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel and
admitted his ownership over the car, petitioner was working
as driver under him and further contended that it is validly
insured with respondent No.2. However, he denied other
averments made in the petition and hence prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
5. Respondent No.2-insurer appeared through its
counsel, filed its objection statement and denied all the
averments made in the petition regarding the date, time
and place of accident; nature of accident; age, income and
profession of the petitioner; petitioner was working under
first respondent and petitioner suffered injuries in the said
accident. It further contended that it is not liable to pay
compensation as claimed in the petition. Hence prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6. On behalf of claimant, the claimant was
examined as P.W.1, examined one witness as P.W.2, got
marked nine documents as Ex.P.1 to P.9 and closed his side
before the labour officer. On behalf of respondents,
respondent No.2 got examined its administrative officer as
RW.1 and got marked two documents as Ex.R.1 and R.2
and closed its side before the labour officer.
7. Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments of both
sides, the labour officer has partly allowed the petition
directing respondents to pay the compensation of
₹1,05,576/- with interest at 12% p.a. to the petitioner by
saddling liability upon respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the
said order of the labour officer, the insurance company has
preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard Sri G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for
appellant insurance Company through VC and Smt.Reshma
Madiwalar, on behalf of Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned counsel
for respondent No.1.
9. Learned counsel for appellant insurance company
would submit that insurance company had called for MLC
record from the concerned hospital and the said application
was dismissed by the labour officer without considering its
relevancy. It was an important document to establish the
contention of insurance company that there was no accident
took place as alleged in the claim petition. At the time of
lodging the complaint, the name of claimant and injured is
not mentioned; on next day of the incident, claimant had
taken treatment. Furthermore, the treated doctor is not
examined to assess the disability of claimant. He would
further submit that, labour officer committed an error in
accepting the contention of the claimant and allowing the
petition. The evidence of P.W.2 ought not to have been
believed because he was not the treated doctor at the time
of incident. Learned counsel for appellant would further
submit that X-ray or any other document is not produced to
prove that the claimant has sustained fractured injuries.
Hence, prayed for allowing the appeal.
10. Learned counsel for respondent/claimant would
submit that the claimant has produced all relevant materials
before the labour commissioner to show that he was
working as driver under respondent No.1 at the time of
alleged accident, which occurred during the course of
employment of the claimant. The doctor who is examined as
P.W.2 has examined the claimant and then issued the
disability certificate. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the
appeal by confirming the order passed by the labour officer.
11. After hearing the matter, the substantial question
of law that arose for consideration is as under:
"Whether there was erroneous finding of
the occurrence of accident on 27.09.2005 at
10.50 p.m. at Kudligi-Gudikote Road?
12. At the time of verifying the records, one more
substantial question of law that would arose for
consideration is:
"Whether the compensation awarded by
the labour officer is on higher side and requires
interference?"
13. The finding of this Court on the above substantial
questions of law are as per the final order for the following:
REASONS
14. Substantial Question of Law No.1: The
claimant has produced relevant documents before the
labour officer, i.e., FIR, complaint, charge sheet, spot
panchanama, MVI report, wound certificate, disability
certificate, and other documents. Even though the insurer
has taken contention that the driver was not having valid
and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the
cross-examination of claimant by the insurer itself shows
that respondent No.2 admitted the existence of driving
license by putting a suggestion to him that in the driving
licence, his date of birth is shown as 01.06.1972. Thus, the
holding of driving licence by claimant is not in dispute. Its
copy is produced and marked as Ex.P.7. It shows that the
claimant was having valid and effective driving licence to
drive LMV. He was driving the car at the time of alleged
accident. Hence, he was having valid and effective driving
licence as on the date of the incident. His date of birth is
shown as 01.06.1972 in the driving licence. Thus, as on the
date of accident, his age was 32 years.
15. The wound certificate as per Ex.P.5 reveals that
the claimant has sustained injury on 27.09.2005 in a road
traffic accident and he was examined by the doctor on
28.09.2005 at 09.10 a.m. and doctor found that there was
dislocation of right shoulder joint and found edema and
scratch wound and other injuries and all the wounds were
fresh in nature and might have sustained injury within 14
hours before his examination. That means, it might have
been taken place in between 07.00 p.m. of 27.09.2005 and
09.10 a.m. of 28.09.2005. Thus, it substantiates the
claimant's contention that the accident took place on
27.09.2005 at 10.50 p.m.
- 10 -
16. It is the further contention of respondent No.2
that name of claimant is not found in the complaint as
injured person. Hence, the say of claimant that he sustained
injuries in the road traffic accident is unbelievable one.
17. On perusal of said complaint, it reveals that this
complaint was given by one K.B.Shiva Shankar. According
to it, the complainant and one Nagaraju were going on their
motorcycle and a car came from back side and dashed to
his motorcycle and thereby caused the accident and
because of that accident the complainant and another
person have sustained injuries.
18. As per Section 3 of the of Workman's
Compensation Act, 1923, if personal injury is caused to a
workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his
employment, then his employer shall be liable to pay
compensation in accordance with provisions of the said
Chapter. Thus, the rashness or negligence on the part of
the claimant is irrelevant to decide the petition of present
nature. The thing to be decided in the petition of present
- 11 -
nature is, whether the claimant has sustained injuries
during the course of his employment or not.
19. In the instant case, as admitted by respondent
No.1 in his objection statement, the claimant was working
as driver under respondent No.1 and during the course of
his employment as driver of the car, the accident has taken
place; wound certificate reveals the injuries sustained by
the claimant. Hence, it is to be held that the accident had
taken place during the course of employment of the
claimant.
20. Considering these aspects, the Labour
Commissioner has rightly come to a conclusion that the
claimant has sustained employment injury. Accordingly,
substantial question of law No.1 is answered in the
negative.
21. Substantial Question of Law No.2: As far as
quantum of compensation is concerned, the labour officer
has rightly held that the age of claimant was 32 years as on
- 12 -
the date of accident. After relying on the evidence of PW.1
and PW.2, the disability of claimant was assessed at 20%
by the labour officer.
22. It is to be noted here that there was dislocation
of right shoulder joint to the claimant. By examining it, the
doctor has given disability certificate as per Ex.P.6.
Considering one grievous injury and other injuries sustained
by the claimant as mentioned in the wound certificate, 20%
disability to the whole body considered by the labour officer
appears to be on higher side. It ought to be 12%
considering the injuries, as there is one grievous injury and
other injuries are simple injuries. The monthly wages
considered by the Labour Commissioner at Rs.4,000/- is
found to be correct and 60% of the same is to be
considered for awarding compensation in injury cases. The
claimant was aged 32 years old at the time of accident, for
which the relevant factor is 203.85. Therefore, loss of
earning capacity due to disability is hereby re-assessed as
follows:
- 13 -
Rs.4,000 x 60% x 203.85 x 12% = Rs.58,708/-.
23. Accordingly, substantial question of law No.2 is
answered in the affirmative.
24. In the result, I proceed to pass the following
order.
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award of the
Labour Officer and Commissioner for
Workmen's Compensation, Sub Division-II,
Ballari, in W.C.(N.F.) No.500/2007, is
modified to an extent that the claimant is
entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.58,708/- as against Rs.1,05,576/-
awarded by the labour officer.
(iii) The compensation amount shall bear
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from
- 14 -
after 30 days from the date of accident till
realization.
(iv) Respondent No.2-insurance Company shall
deposit the compensation amount with
accrued interest before the labour officer,
within eight weeks from the date of receipt
of certified copy of this judgment.
(v) Send back the records along with a copy of
this judgment and award to the Labour
Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Sub Division-II, Ballari.
(vi) No order as to costs.
(vii) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
MRK
CT-CMU
