[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Afzal S/O Imamasab Bhatewale vs Sameer S/O Imam Bhate on 10 March, 2026
Author: Ravi V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
MFA No. 24779 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.24779 OF 2012
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101521 OF 2014
IN MFA NO. 24779/2012:
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAMDEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, ARIHANT PLAZA,
OPP: SBI ZONAL OFFICE,
KESHWAPUR, HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI AFZAL IMAMSAB BATEWALE,
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER NOW NIL,
R/O. RAI GALLI, LONDA,
TALUK: KANAPUR, DIST: BELGAUM.
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
2. SHRI SAMEER IMAM BHATE,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.03.11 09:47:10
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O.H.NO.1072, AVANTI NAGAR,
+0000
USGAON, PONDA, GOA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI GURURAJ R. TURAMARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE W.C. ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 09.07.2012
PASSED IN WCA/SR/42/2010 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION,
SUB-DIVISION-2, BELGAUM & ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
MFA No. 24779 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014
HC-KAR
IN MFA NO. 101521/2014:
BETWEEN:
SHRI AFZAL
S/O IMAMASAB BHATEWALE,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, NOW NILL,
R/O: RAI GALLI, LONDA, TQ: KHANAPUR,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI SAMEER
S/O IMAM BHATE,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.1072, AVANTI NAGAR,
USAGAON, PONDA,
DIST: PANAJI, STATE: GOA.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SURESH S. GUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCED THE
COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I BELGAUM, IN KA
PA KA / SR-42/2010 DATED 09.07.2012 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
MFA No. 24779 of 2012
C/W MFA No. 101521 of 2014
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Though matter is listed for admission, with consent of
learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Challenging award dated 09.07.2012 passed by
Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division 2,
Belagavi1 in WCA/SR/42/2010, these appeals are filed.
3. MFA no.24779/2012 is by Insurer, while MFA
no.101521/2014 is filed by workman.
4. Sri Suresh S. Gundi, learned counsel for appellant
submitted that appeal was by Insurer challenging award on
substantial question that award was passed even when
workman failed to establish relationship of employer and
employee; failed to establish loss of earning capacity as PW2-
doctor admitted he had not assessed loss of earning capacity
and award was passed ignoring violation of policy conditions as
it was mentioned in FIR vehicle was used for hire/reward by
receiving fare of Rs.1,600/- from passengers. In support of
their submission, learned counsel for Insurer relied upon
For short, 'Tribunal'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
HC-KAR
decision of this Court in MFA No.2011/2010 disposed off on
06.03.2018 and prayed for allowing appeal.
5. On other hand, Sri HR Latur, learned counsel for
workman opposed appeal filed by Insurer. Pressing appeal by
workman, it was submitted while working as driver in Car
no.GA-02/J-2899 belonging to Employer on monthly salary of
Rs.4,000/- and daily bhatta of Rs.100/- and driving it as per
instructions on 03.10.2008 near Mollem, it met with accident
with oncoming tipper lorry. In accident, workman sustained
grievous injuries and despite treatment at Bambolim Hospital,
Goa and later at private Hospitals at Belagavi and Goa, he did
not recover fully and sustained loss of earning capacity.
Therefore, he filed claim under provisions of Workmen's
Compensation Act, 19232, before Commissioner of Workmen's
Compensation, Belagavi.
6. After service of notice and entering appearance,
Employer did not file objections. Only Insurer filed objections
disputing claim application on all counts.
For short, 'WC Act'
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
HC-KAR
7. Based on pleadings, Commissioner framed following
issues:
(1) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £Àµ×À ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1923gÀ PÀ®A 2(1)(J£ï)
ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÉÃ?
(2) EzÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀªÅÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ¢AzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄÃ?
(3) C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀjUÉ JµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìVzÀݪÀÅ?
(4) C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À JµÀÄÖ?
(5) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ°è PÉýgÀĪÀµÄÀ Ö ¥ÀjºÁgÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä
CºÀðgÉÃ?
(6) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §rØ ºÁUÀÆ zÀAqÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä
CºÀðgÉÃ?
(7) DzÉñÀªÁzÀ°è ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£À, §rØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä AiÀiÁgÀÄ
dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÀÄ?
(8) F §UÉÎ DzÉñÀªÉãÀÄ?
8. In trial, workman examined himself as PW1 and Dr.
Satish D Patil as PW2 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to
P10. In rebuttal, Insurer examined its official as RW1 and got
marked copy of insurance policy as Ex.R1.
9. On consideration, Commissioner answered issues in
favour of workman and held Insurer liable to pay compensation
of Rs.2,01,824/- with interest at 12% per annum from 30 days
after date of award. Aggrieved, both Insurer and Workman
were in Appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
HC-KAR
10. It was submitted, though workman stated he was
earning Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.100/- as Bhatta,
Commissioner considered monthly income at only Rs.3,500/-.
Further, Commissioner erred in granting interest from 30 days
after award contrary to statute. Therefore, substantial question
of law arose for consideration and sought allowing appeal. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel relied on decisions
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Golla Rajanna and Ors.
v. The Divisional Manager and Ors.3 and North East
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. Sujatha4.
11. Sri GR Turamari, learned counsel for Employer
submitted, though objections were not filed before
Commissioner, Employer had admitted relationship of
employer-employee in objections filed in Insurer's appeal. In
view of same, no substantial questions of law arose in Insurer's
appeal and sought for its dismissal.
12. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused
award, certified copies of pleadings and deposition made
available by learned counsel for appellant-Insurer.
(2017) 1 SCC 45
AIR 2018 SC 5593
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
HC-KAR
13. At outset, it is seen, these appeals are under
Section 30 of WC Act, which proscribes appeals except on
substantial question of law. Substantial questions of law
propounded by Insurer are failure to establish relationship of
Employer-Employee, passing of award even when Doctor had
not assessed loss of earning capacity and fastening of liability
on Insurer ignoring violation of terms and conditions of policy.
While in workman's appeal substantial question of law
propounded is about award of interest being contrary to law.
14. Perused of police investigation records i.e.,
complaint, FIR, Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and
Panchanama marked as Exs.P1 to P4, as well as wound
certificate, discharge summary, driving license, disability
certificate, school leaving certificate and X-rays, reveals
reference to injured as driver of Car. While giving finding about
relationship of Employer-Employee, Commissioner not only
adverted to assertion in pleading, but also its corroboration in
police investigation records. Based on same, Commissioner
held relationship of Employer and employee as proved.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
HC-KAR
15. Though, attention of this Court is drawn to
admission by workman about non-production of document to
substantiate relationship and wages paid, same would not
render findings without any basis or contrary to material on
record. In decisions relied by counsel for workman, such
findings are held to be finding of fact.
16. Even insofar as loss of earning capacity, admission
referred to above is by PW2-Dr.Satish D. Patil, that he had not
assessed loss of earning capacity, he being a qualified Medical
Practitioner, within meaning of terms of Section 4(1)(c) of WC
Act. But PW-2 has assessed permanent physical disability
sustained by workman. He also noted loss of grip strength due
to loss of muscle mass. When there is no dispute about
workman sustaining injuries to both his upper limbs and
disability sustained consequent to loss of muscle strength.
Considering occupation of workman herein i.e. driving requiring
usage of both hands, acceptance of assessment of physical
disability as functional disability by Commissioner cannot be
stated without basis or contrary to material on record.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
HC-KAR
17. Further contention about violation of policy
condition is based on averment in complaint by brother of one
of passengers in Car, that they were travelling by paying fare of
Rs.1,600/- and hiring Car as taxi. Firstly, there is no
corroboration of said assertion. No notice is issued by Insurer
about violation of terms of insurance. In any case, this being
claim under provisions of WC Act, defences available in respect
of claims under Motor Vehicles Act cannot be pressed into
service herein. On above reasoning, contention requires
rejection.
18. Insofar as claimant's appeal, though workman
stated that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month apart from
Rs.100/- per day which would Rs.7,000/- per month, as on
date of accident, i.e. on 03.10.2008, maximum income that
could be considered under Section 4 (1) (B) of WC Act was
Rs.4,000/-. When no records were produced to substantiate
income or payment, Commissioner assessed it at Rs.3,500/-
based on material on record. Same would be a finding of fact
not amenable for interference.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
HC-KAR
19. However, in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Smt. Sujatha (supra) referring to its earlier
decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata
and Anr.5 and Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Siby
George and others6, holding interest would be payable from
30 days after incident, direction by Commissioner would be
contrary to statute. On said substantial question of law,
claimant's appeal is allowed, holding Insurer liable to pay
interest at 12% per annum from 30 days from date of incident
(03.10.2008), i.e. from 04.11.2008.
20. For above reasoning, decision relied on by insurer
would not be applicable. Hence, following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal in MFA no.24779/2012 filed by
Insurer is dismissed.
(ii) Appeal in MFA no.101521/2014 filed by
workman is allowed in part only insofar as
clarifying that interest at 12% would be
(1976) 1 SCC 289
(2012) 12 SCC 540
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3757
HC-KAR
payable from 30 days after date of incident
i.e. from 04.11.2008.
(iii) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
transmitted to Tribunal for disbursal.
Sd/-
(RAVI V.HOSMANI)
JUDGE
SMM, CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11
