IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.22017/2010 (WC)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

BALLARI, NOW REP. BY ITS

THE REGIONAL MANAGER,

SUMANGAL COMPLEX,OPP:CORPORATION,

LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBBALLI

DIST:DHARWAD.

...APPELLANT

(BY SMT. PADMAJA TADAPATRI FOR SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

OBLESH S/O DURGAPPA

AGE:MAJOR(NOT KNOWN),

R/O RAJAPUR,TQ:SANDUR,

DIST:BALLARI.

2.

KUMARSWAMI

AGE:MAJOR(NOT KNOWN)

R/O. RAJAPUR,TQ:SANDUR,

DIST:BALLARI.

(OWNER OF THE TRUCK BEARING NO.KA35/B-5329)

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH G. PATIL. ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;

R2 – SERVED)

2

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1)(a) OF THE WORKMEN

COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER

DT:21.01.2010, PASSED IN WC SR NO.299/2007 ON THE FILE

OF

THE

LABOUR

OFFICER

AND

COMMISSIONER

FOR

WORKMENS

COMPENSATION,

SUB-DIVISION-1,

BELLARY,

AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,16,219/- WITH

INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF

PETITION AND SHALL BE DEPOSITED WITHIN ONE MONTH

FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The instant appeal is filed by the Insurer of the

truck bearing registration No.KA-35/B-5329, which

was involved in the accident that had taken place on

03.03.2007, in which the claimant had sustained

injuries, challenging the judgment and award dated

21.01.2010,

passed

by

the

Commissioner

for

Workmen's

Compensation,

Sub-Division-II,

Ballari

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’, for

brevity)

in

WC

SR

No.299/2007,

wherein

the

claimant was awarded a compensation of `1,16,219/-

with interest as provided under the statute.

2.

The claimant had filed a petition under

Section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923,

3

claiming compensation towards the injuries suffered

by him in the accident that had taken place on

03.03.2007. It is the case of the claimant that, on

03.03.2007, when he was traveling in the offending

lorry as an employee of the owner of the offending

lorry, the said lorry met with an accident and in the

said accident the claimant had suffered grievous

injuries and he had taken extensive treatment for the

injuries

suffered

by

him

in

the

accident.

The

Commissioner

after

appreciating

the

oral

and

documentary evidence available on record, partly

allowed

the

petition

awarding

compensation

of

`1,16,219/-with statutory interest to the claimant

and saddled the liability on the Insurer of the

offending

lorry

bearing

registration

No.KA-35/B-

5329. Being aggrieved by the same, the Insurer is

before this Court.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurer

submits

that

the

Commissioner

has

erred

in

entertaining the claim petition as the claimant had

4

failed to prove the relationship of employee and

employer and therefore the Commissioner is not

justified in awarding any compensation amount to the

claimant. She also submits that the claimant has

suffered only simple injuries and claimant also had

failed to prove that he had an income of `4,000/- per

month. She further submitted that the rate of

interest awarded by the Commissioner is also on the

higher side. Accordingly she prays to allow the

appeal.

4.

Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for

the claimant has argued in support of the impugned

judgment and award passed by the Commissioner and

prays to dismiss the appeal.

5.

I

have

carefully

considered

the

rival

arguments and also perused the material evidence

available on record.

6.

The accident in question is not disputed

and so also the fact that the offending lorry was duly

5

insured with the Insurer as on the date of the

accident. Before the Commissioner, the owner of the

lorry

has

admitted

that

the

claimant

was

his

employee. Ther