Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Yallappa S/O. Mahagundappa Ganiger on 24 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021
MFA No. 20276 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20276 OF 2012 (WC-)
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RAMDEVA GALLI, BELGAUM.
NOW REP BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SUJATHA
COMPLEX, P B ROAD, HUBLI-580029.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. GANGADHAR S HOSAKERI, ADV)
AND:
1. SRI. YALLAPPA S/O. MAHAGUNDAPPA
GANIGER, AGE: 36 YEARS, BADAMI,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. SRI. MALLAPPA S/O. MAHAGUNDAPPA
HUCHAMAGUNDAPPANAVAR,
R/O: GANIGER GALLI, BADAMI,
TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
(BY SRI. S.S. YALIGAR, ADV FOR R1,
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST
Location:
HIGH THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:12.10.2011 PASSED IN W.C
COURT OF
KARNATAKA NO.83/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, BAGALKOT
DISTRICT BAGALKOT, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,49,292/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE
DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN ONE MONTH
FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021
MFA No. 20276 of 2012
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
This Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to
as 'The Act,' for short) by the appellant-Insurance
Company, challenging the judgment and award dated
12.10.2011 passed in WC.NF.No.83/2008 by the Labour
Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,
Bagalkot (hereinafter referred to as 'The Commissioner,' for
short).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal,
are as follows:
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was
working as a driver of an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.
KA-29/6495, belonged to respondent no.1. it is contended
that on 27.01.2008, while the petitioner was driving the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021
HC-KAR
auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-29/6495 as per the
instructions of Respondent No.1, carrying passengers, from
Badami to Ramdurg Cross towards Karadigudda village, the
driver of an auto-rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KA-29/7085 was
coming from Karadigudda side towards the Badami, in a
rash and negligent manner, collided with the auto-rickshaw
bearing Reg.No.KA-29/6495, and caused an accident. As
the result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries during
the course and out of the employment. Thus, the petitioner,
filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act, claiming
compensation.
4. Notice was issued to respondent No.1-owner of
the offending auto-rickshaw. Despite the service of notice,
he remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte.
5. Respondent No.2-the Insurance Company filed a
statement of objections denying the averments made in the
claim petition. It is contended that there is no relationship
of employer-employee between the owner of the auto-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021
HC-KAR
rickshaw and the petitioner. It is also contended that the
there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by
entrusting the vehicle to a person who did not possess a
valid and effective driving license as of the date of the
accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against
the Insurance Company.
6. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the
parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The petitioner, to substantiate his case,
examined himself as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2,
and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. Conversely,
the Insurance Company examined its officer as R.W.1, and
no documents were marked. The Commissioner, after
assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed
the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of
Rs.1,49,292/- with interest, and held that the owner and
the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation amount and directed the Insurance Company
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021
HC-KAR
to deposit the compensation amount. The appellant-
Insurance Company, aggrieved by the judgment and award
passed by the Commissioner in WC.NF.No.83/2008, has
filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel
for the respondent-petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company
submits that there is no relationship of employer-employee
between the owner of the auto-rickshaw and the petitioner.
He submits that the driver of the auto-rickshaw did not
possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date
of the accident. The Commissioner did not consider these
aspects and proceeded to allow the claim petition. The
impugned judgment and award passed by the
Commissioner is arbitrary and erroneous, and contrary to
the records. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the
appeal and dismiss the claim petition.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021
HC-KAR
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that admittedly, the petitioner was working as a
driver as of the date of the accident. He submits that the
accident occurred during the course and out of the
employment. He submits that there exists a relationship of
employer-employee between the petitioner and the owner
of the auto-rickshaw. He submits that the Commissioner
was justified in passing the impugned judgment and the
award. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the
appeal.
11. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company, and the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
12. This court admitted the appeal to consider the
following substantial questions of law.
Whether the Commissioner was justified in fastening the
liability on the Insurance Company in spite of there being no
relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1
and respondent No.2 herein?
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021
HC-KAR
Substantial question of law.
13. There is no dispute regarding the occurrence of
the accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a
road traffic accident. The petitioner contended that he was
an employee of the owner of an auto-rickshaw bearing
Reg.No. KA-29/6495. The accident was occurred during the
course and out of the employment. The Insurance Company
has denied the exitance of relationship of employer-
employee between the owner of the auto-rickshaw bearing
Reg.No.KA-29/6495 and the petitioner. Respondent No.1-
the owner of the said auto-rickshaw, has employed the
petitioner as a driver. Though notice was issued to the
owner, but despite the service of notice, he remained
unrepresented. The owner of the said auto-rickshaw did not
deny that the petitioner is an employee under him. In the
absence of denial of the relationship of employer-employee,
the Commissioner has rightly held that there exists a
relationship of employer-employee between the owner of
the auto-rickshaw and the petitioner. The Commissioner
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021
HC-KAR
considering the evidence on record as rightly held that there
exists a relationship of employer-employee between the
owner of the auto-rickshaw and the petitioner, and he
sustained injuries during the course and out of the
employment.
14. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., VS SMT. MAHANANDA
AND OTHERS IN MFA NO.5426/2007, disposed of on
31.01.2009, has held that the issue of employer and
employee relationship is a pure question of fact. It cannot
be raised as a question of law, much less, the substantial
question of law, in the wake of some evidence given by the
employer. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question of
law in the affirmative.
15. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:13021
HC-KAR
ii) The judgment and award dated 12.10.2011
passed in WC.NF.No.83/2008 by the Labour
Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Bagalkot, is hereby confirmed.
iii) The records, and the amount in deposit, if any,
shall be transmitted to the Labour Officer and
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,
Bagalkot, forthwith.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
MBS
CT: BSB
