Divisional Manager Vs Manchalamma W/O Late Ambrish

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 06^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23333 OF 2013 (WC-)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, OPP: RADHIKA TALKIES, RAGHAVACHARI ROAD, BALLARI-583201.

¶7

…APPELLANT

¶8

(BY SRI. C.V ANGADI, ADV)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SMT. MANCHALAMMA W/O LATE AMBRISH AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD R/O: MANNUR VILLAGE, TAL: SHIRAGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI-583121.

¶11

MR. LINGAPPA S/O IRAPPA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: R/O: MANNUR VILLAGE, TAL: SHIRAGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI-583121.

¶12

SMT. HANAMANTAMMA W/O LINGAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LR’S ALREADY ON RECORD AS R1 & R2

¶13

MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR

¶14

Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.11 12:13:03 +0530

¶15

Mr. P. VEERESHAPPA S/O SANKRAPPA SAJJAN AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF TRACTOR BEARING NO. KA-37/T-4449 R/O : SIDDAPUR VILLAGE, TAL : GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV FOR R1 & R2, NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WC ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:25.06.2013 PASSED IN W.C. NO.105/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BALLARI DISTRICT BALLARI, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,33,820/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A., FROM

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

¶25

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the insurance company, challenging the judgment and award dated 25.06.2013 passed by the learned Labour officer and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Bellary subdivison-1, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’, for short), in W.C. No.105/2007.

¶26

Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

¶27

The legal representatives of deceased Ambarish filed the claim petition. It is the case of the claimants that on 22.06.2006 at about 2:30 pm, Ambarish went to work under the orders, and directions of one P.Veereshappa i.e. the owner of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-37/T-4449 and while so driving, the tractor toppled near the farm of one Sajjannar Mahantappa of Mannur village. Ambarish

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

sustained grievous injuries, and immediately admitted to the Government hospital for the treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellary for further treatment. He succumbed to the injuries during the treatment period. It is contended that the Ambarish died during the course of employment. Hence, the claimants are entitled to the compensation on account of death of Ambarish in the road traffic accident.

¶31

Owner of the tractor filed a statement of

¶32

objection contending that the deceased was working as a driver in the tractor, he met with an accident while he was working and there was a relationship of employer-employee between them.

¶33

The insurance company filed a statement of objection denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that no relationship existed between deceased Ambarish and the owner- P.Veereshappa as an employee-employer.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

The commissioner passed an order dated

¶37

29.07.2008 dismissing the claim petition.

¶38

The claimants, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the Commissioner, preferred an appeal before this Court in MFA No.20116/2009. This Court allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 11.07.2011, and remitted the matter to the Commissioner, to record the evidence of the owner of the tractor. After remand the owner of the tractor was examined, and he has deposed that deceased Ambarish was working under him, and he was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. He admitted that he is the owner of the tractor, and the said vehicle was insured with the insurance company. It is contended that as of the date of the accident, the policy was in force. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against him.

¶39

The Commissioner, considering the submissions of both parties, framed the relevant points for consideration.

¶40

The claimants, to substantiate their case, claimant No.1 examined herself as PW.1, and produced 11

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

documents as Exs.P-1 to P-11. In rebuttal, the owner of the tractor examined and an official of the insurance company were examined as RWs.1 and 2 and document was marked.

¶44

The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment and award dated 25.06.2013 and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,33,820/- with interest at 12% per annum after 30 days from the date of the judgment. The insurance company wad directed to pay the compensation.

¶45

The insurance company, aggrieved by the award passed by the Commissioner filed this appeal.

¶46

Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company, and the learned counsel for the claimants.

¶47

Learned counsel for the insurance company submits that deceased Ambarish was working as a driver in another tractor in the lands of one Sri. Peddaraj on 22.06.2006. The FIR produced by the claimants marked as Ex.P-1, categorically states that the deceased was driving

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

the tractor in the lands of Peddaraj and the accident took place because of toppling of the tractor. The driver of the tractor of KA-37/T-4449 namely Sri. Ramesh Doddabasappa Chalavadi working under P. Veereshappa give a statement on 22.06.2006 before the PSI Sirigere Police Station. The said aspect was not properly considered by the Commissioner. He submits that the liability fastened on the insurance company is contrary to the records produced by the claimants. Hence, he submits that the claimants have played a fraud. Therefore, On these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal.

¶51

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants submits that after investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet, and he submits that the owner of the vehicle filed statement of objections admitting the relation of employer-employee between him and the deceased. Further he submits that the owner of the vehicle entered the witness box, and nothing has been elicited from the mouth of the owner of the tractor. He also submits that the insurance

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

company has pleaded regarding a fraud and the burden is on the insurance company to establish the fraud. He submits that, as the insurance company has not produced any material to establish the fraud, the Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned judgment. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶55

This Court, vide order dated 08.02.2021, framed the following substantial questions of law:

¶56

i. Whether the Commissioner was justified in fastening the liability on the appellant overlooking the exhibit P-1-FIR produced by the claimants?

¶57

ii. Whether the Commissioner was justified in overlooking the evidence on record that the deceased was working as a driver under Peddaraj and in the lands of Peddaraj and that the accident took place in the agricultural lands of Peddaraj?

¶58

iii. Whether the Commissioner was justified in clamping liability on this appellant overlooking

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

the statement of the mother of the deceased (respondent No.3)?

¶62

15. Substantital questions of law Nos.(i) and (ii) :

¶63

These questions of law are interlinked and they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts.

¶64

15.1. The case of the claimants is that the Ambarish was working under one P.Veereshappa as a driver on 22.06.2006. The deceased went to work under the orders and directions of the owner. While he was so driving, the tractor overturned, and he sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal representatives of deceased Ambarish, filed a claim petition. To prove that the accident occurred during the course of employment, the owner of the vehicle a filed written statement admitting the relationship of employer-employee between him and the deceased Ambarish.

¶65

To rebut the evidence of the owner of the tractor, the insurance company has not lead any evidence. Though, the insurance company has pleaded fraud, it has

¶66

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

failed to establish that the fraud has been played by the claimants. In the absence of any proof regarding a fraud, the Commissioner was justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred during the course of employment, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel for the insurance company, placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of A.P. and another v. T. Suryachandra Rao reported in (2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 149 and in the case of Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand reported in (1977) 2 SCC 155 .

¶69

From the perusal of a written statement filed by the insurance company, it is evident that there is a general statement contending that fraud has been played. The Tribunal was justified in overlooking Ex.P-1 produced by the claimants, and considering the evidence of the owner of the tractor, the Commissioner has rightly recorded a finding that there exists the relationship of employer and employee between the owner and the deceased and the accident took

¶70

10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

place during the course of employment, and has rightly saddled the liability on the insurance company.

¶73

In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial questions of law (i) and (ii) in the affirmative.

¶74

Substantial question of law (iii) : The

¶75

Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned judgment, considering the statement given by the mother the deceased before the police at the time of inquest panchanama. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajamma v. Divisional Manager reported in (2017) 1 SCC 45 held that, “ under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts. Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the appeal only to substantial questions of law being a welfare legislation. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdiction and has ventured to reappreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The

¶76

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9941 MFA No. 23333 of 2013

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the act.”

¶79

The scope of appeal under Section 30 of the Act is minimal. This Court in the appeal under Section 30 of the Act, cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record. Hence, in view of the above discussions I answer substantial question of law No.(iii) in the affirmative, and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

¶80

ORDER

¶81