Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 2499
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
GEETHA K.B., J.
National Insurance Company Limited, Bellary. Rep. By Deputy Manager – Appellant
Versus
Sri D.M. Inatulla, S/o. D.M. Faizulla – Respondent
Miscellaneous First Appeal No.23281 of 2013
Decided On : 24-11-2025
Important Points
Subject
Employment Law - Workmen's Compensation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Compensation Assessment - Age of claimant established as 32 years at the time of accident; disability initially assessed at 20% was re-evaluated to 12% based on nature of injuries; monthly wages assessed at Rs.4,000 for compensation calculation. (Paras 21, 22)
Facts of the case:
Claimant, while driving under employment, was involved in an accident on 27.09.2005, resulting in injuries, including dislocation of his shoulder joint, leading to a claim for compensation of Rs.1,05,576 awarded by the Labour Officer, which the insurer contested.
Findings of Court:
Court found the claimant sustained injuries during the course of employment, modifying compensation to Rs.58,708 and confirming 12% interest.
Issues: The main issues were whether an accident occurred as claimed and whether the compensation awarded was excessive.
Ratio Decidendi: Court affirmed the Labour Officer's findings on employment injury and re-evaluated compensation based on a reassessment of disability and wages.
Result: Appeal allowed in part, modifying compensation amount.
For the Appellant :Sri G.N. Raichur, Advocate
For the Respondent:Smt. Reshma Madiwalar, Advocate for Sri T. Hanumareddy, Advocate.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claim for compensation due to accident. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. defendant's response and denial of claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments presented by both sides. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. substantial questions of law identified. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 5. evidence supports occurrence of the accident. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 6. claimant's employment ties to injury established. (Para 16 , 19) |
| 7. assessment of compensation based on injuries. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 8. final resolution of appeal and compensation awarded. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT :
GEETHA K.B., J.
The insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 30 (1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, praying for setting aside the award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub Division-II, Ballari, (in short, labour officer) in W.C.(NF) No.500/2007, dated 27.04.2013 on the points of liability and quantum of compensation.
2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before trial Court for sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The petitioner has filed the petition before the labour officer, praying for compensation in the accident that had taken place on 27.09.2005 at 10.50 p.m. in front of the house of Vaidar Anandappa at Kudligi-Gudikote Road, in Kudligi. It is stated in the petition that he was working as driver of the car bearing registration No.KL-31/M-1893 under the employment of respondent No.1; as per the directions and order of respondent No.1, he was going in the said car as driver in front of the house of Vaidara Anandappa. At that time, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-35/4496, being ridden by its rider was going in front of his car; rider of said motorcycle suddenly applied brake and the appellant could not control the vehicle and dashed against the motorcycle and thereby the accident happened. On next day of the accident, the claimant has taken treatment at Government Hospital, Kudligi and also in private hospital; due to the accident, claimant has suffered dislocation of right shoulder joint and other two simple injuries and there is permanent disability to him; he cannot work as he was working earlier. Hence, prayed for allowing the petition by contending that respondent No.1 is the owner cum his employer and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said car.
4. After receipt of the notice of this petition, respondent No.1 appeared through his counsel and admitted his ownership over the car, petitioner was working as driver under him and further contended that it is validly insured with respondent No.2. However, he denied other averments made in the petition and hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Respondent No.2-insurer appeared through its counsel, filed its objection statement and denied all the averments made in the petition regarding the date, time and place of accident; nature of accident; age, income and profession of the petitioner; petitioner was working under first respondent and petitioner suffered injuries in the said accident. It further contended that it is not liable to pay compensation as claimed in the petition. Hence prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. On behalf of claimant, the claimant was examined as P.W.1, examined one witness as P.W.2, got marked nine documents as Ex.P.1 to P.9 and closed his side before the labour officer. On behalf of respondents, respondent No.2 got examined its administrative officer as RW.1 and got marked two documents as Ex.R.1 and R.2 and closed its side before the labour officer.
7. Thereafter, upon hearing the arguments of both sides, the labour officer has partly allowed the petition directing respondents to pay the compensation of Rs.1,05,576/- with interest at 12% p.a. to the petitioner by saddling liability upon respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the said order of the labour officer, the insurance company has preferred the present appeal.
8. Heard Sri G.N.Raichur, learned counsel for appellant insurance Company through VC and Smt.Reshma Madiwalar, on behalf of Sri T.Hanum
