Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J : This appeal is by the insurer against the award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Bijapur in WCA/SR/NO.188/2008 dated 29.07.2011.

2. On 26.07.2008, the claimant was on duty as a driver of jeep bearing No.KA-28/M-6099. While he was going from Indi to Hirebevanur, the accident is said to have occurred. In that accident, the claimant has sustained grievous injuries to the head, wrist and chest. The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-Division-I, Bijapur after enquiry, having held that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep, awarded total compensation of Rs.74,873/- with 12% interest from one month after the date of accident.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2010 Kar 2600 in the case of Louis Martis Vs. Louis Korrea and Another, with reference to Clause-ii of Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.

4. Heard the Counsel for the appellant and the Counsel for the respondents.

5. Though there is a reference made to Section 3(1)(b) of the Act in question in the above cited decision wherein charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/claimant, on the ground that the claimant was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he is not entitled for compensation, the claim petition was dismissed. Section 3(1)(b) refers to willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workmen. There is nothing on record to demonstrate regarding willful disobedience for the purpose, in the course of employment. Even if the accident occurs during the course of employment, his employer shall be liable to pay the compensation.

6. The negligence may be attributed depending upon the degree of care or the standard of care to be taken. If the accident occurred due to the negligence, it cannot be held to be willful disobedience. In that view of the matter, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the decision cited supra, though it has been held that when an accident happens due to his own negligence it cannot be said that the employer or the insurer is liable but, on a proper reading of the section, it could be said willful disobedience differs from negligence. If negligence is considered as an omission on the part of the workman in discharging his duty, it cannot be said as a willful conduct or willful negligence so as not to fasten liability on the employer or insurer. In that view of the matter, the decision of the Division Bench of this Court cannot be held applicable to the case on hand. The appeal preferred by the insurer relying on the decision of this Court does not survive for consideration.

Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the insurer is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.