[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs Iramma W/O Irappa Badnikai @ Devarmani on 15 April, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5505
MFA No. 25627 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 25627 OF 2012 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ENKAY COMPLEX, KESHAVAPUR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SS JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT.IRAMMA W/O IRAPPA BADNIKAI @ DEVARMANI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: HADLI, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG.
2. SHRI SHARNAPPA B. JAVALI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: HADLI, TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG.
(OWNER OF LORRY KA-25/2731)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
3. SMT.PARATEVVA W/O ULAVAPPA BADNIKAI @
KATTIMANI
DEVARMANI, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: HADLI,
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
TQ: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG.
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.04.17 22:34:30 -
0700 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SM KALWAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI PRAVEEN G. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2(ABSENT);
R3- APPEAL IS DISMISSED (V/O DATED 10.03.2026)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 15.05.2012 PASSED IN W.C.A.C.F. NO.59/2008 ON
THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, GADAG & ETC.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5505
MFA No. 25627 of 2012
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 15.05.2012 passed
by Labour Commissioner and Commissioner for Workmen
Compensation, Gadag ('Commissioner' for short) in WCA
no.59/2008, this appeal is filed.
2. This appeal was admitted on 20.09.2016, without
framing substantial question of law. Since, learned counsel
submitted that only substantial question of law propounded is
about finding of Commissioner on relationship of employer and
employee being without any basis following substantial question
of law was framed.
"Whether finding of commissioner about relationship of
employer and employee is without any basis and award
calls for interference?"
3. Sri S.S Joshi, learned counsel for appellant
submitted, appeal was by insurer challenging finding of
Commissioner on relationship of employer and employee and
consequent fastening of liability on insurer.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5505
HC-KAR
4. It was submitted, in application for compensation
filed under provisions of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
('EC Act' for short), it was stated, one Irappa son of Ulavappa
Badnikai @ Devaramani was employed as cleaner by Respondent
no.1 herein in his mini Lorry no.KA-25/2731 and as per
instructions of employer on 27.01.2008, when vehicle was
proceeding from Hadali village towards Budihal, driver drove it in
rash and negligent manner causing Irappa to fall from vehicle
leading to his death during treatment. Alleging loss of
dependency, application for compensation was filed against
owner/employer and insurer of vehicle.
5. On appearance, owner filed written statement
admitting relationship of employer and employee and employing
workman on monthly wages of ₹5,000/- with daily bhata of
₹50/-, and about vehicle being insured with respondent no.2 and
employer indemnified by insurer. Insurer filed written statement
opposing claim application on all counts including denying
relationship of employer and employee and occurrence of
incident in course of employment etc.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5505
HC-KAR
6. Based on pleadings Commissioner framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant wife of deceased examined herself
as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. No evidence was led by
respondents.
7. On consideration, in view of admission by employer
about employment, Commissioner held relationship of employer
and employee was established and claimant entitled for
compensation assessed by determining monthly income of
deceased at ₹3,500/- applying factor corresponding to his age at
₹207.98, at ₹3,63,965/- payable by insurer. Aggrieved, insurer
was in appeal.
8. It was submitted, complaint was filed by wife of
diseased, after delay of 5 days and without mentioning
employment of deceased and Commissioner relied on solely on
objections filed by employer admitting employment, it was
submitted, relying on admission, without corroboration either by
examining driver of vehicle or any other co-employee, finding
would be without proper basis and as such impugned award
suffered from perversity and call for interference.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5505
HC-KAR
9. On other hand, SM Kalwad learned counsel for
respondents no.1 and 2, claimants opposed appeal. It was
submitted, appeal under Section 30 of EC Act would lie only on
substantial question of law and since none arose for
consideration, appeal was liable for dismissal. It was specifically
submitted, owner/employer had appeared before Commissioner
and filed written statement admitting relationship of employer
and employee. Based on said material, Commissioner had
arrived at conclusion. Thus, there was some basis for conclusion
and it was not perverse. Therefore, no interference would be
warranted and sought dismissal.
10. Heard learned counsel perused impugned judgment,
award and record.
11. This appeal is by insurer challenging finding of
Commissioner on relationship of employer and employee. In
order to establish said aspect, claimant relied on pleadings as
well as police investigation records. Indeed as pointed out by
learned counsel for appellant, there is no mention in complaint
about deceased being employed as cleaner in mini Lorry as on
date of accident. But, it is seen that employer arrayed as
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5505
HC-KAR
respondent no.1 had entered appearance and filed written
statement admitting relationship of employer and employee and
mentioning monthly wages as ₹5,000/- with ₹50/- per day as
bhata.
12. While passing impugned award, Commissioner based
its finding on said admission. Though finding is sought to
challenge as being without any basis, it is seen that there is no
contrary material. It has not notified insured calling upon him to
furnish employment records, muster Roll, Wage Register etc.
Neither any notice nor any documents to contradict admission
are produced. Only effort is taking a bare plea.
13. Under above circumstances when finding of
Commissioner is based on admission in pleading of employer, it
cannot be stated that finding of Commissioner regarding a
relationship of employer and employee is without any basis and
suffers from perversity. Besides an appeal under Section 30 of
EC Act would be tenable only on a substantial question of law.
14. In view of above, as finding of Commissioner is based
on some material, same cannot be held to be suffering from
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5505
HC-KAR
perversity as would call for interference. Therefore substantial
question of law is answered in negative. Consequently following
order.
ORDER
(i) Appeal is dismissed.
(ii) Amount in deposit, is order to be transmitted to
Commissioner/Jurisdictional Civil Court for
dispersal forthwith.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
EM
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14
