IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22200 OF 2013 (WC)

BETWEEN:

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, RAMADEV GALLI, BELGAUM, R/BY DEPUTY MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFICE, KUSUGAL ROAD, HUBLI.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. YALLAPPA TOLE S/O. SHIVAPPA, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. KANCHAKAR WADI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM.

CHANDRASHEKAR 2. RAVI BHIMAPPA METHRI, LAXMAN KATTIMANI S/O. C. BHIMAPPA, Digitally signed by AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGHCOURT R/O. VIDYANAGAR, RAIBAG, OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD TQ: RAIBAG & DIST: BELGAUM.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1;

NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN NO.WCA/SR-16/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB- DIVISION-I, BELGAUM DISTRICT. BELAGAUM; PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 20.02.2013 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM DISTRICT BELGAUM IN NO.WCA/SR-16/2012 SADDLING THE LIABILITY AGAINST THIS APPELLANT AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.)

This is the appeal filed by the Insurer under Section

30(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 challenging the judgment and award passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division- I, Belagavi (for short, ‘Commissioner’) in Case No.KAPAKA/SR-16/2012 dated 20.02.2013.

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before Commissioner for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The claimant has filed the claim petition before the Commissioner contending that he sustained accident while discharging his duty as employee under respondent No.1 on 24.02.2011 at about 02.30 p.m. while he was leveling the sugarcane in the trailer attached to the tractor bearing No.KA-23/TA/6493 and No.KA-23/TA/6494. His contention is that before the accident he was working as coolie under first respondent, thus there was employer and employee relationship between first respondent and the claimant; claimant was getting income of ₹.8,000/- per month and he was aged about 30 years at the time of accident. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained fracture of left calcaneum with tendo Achilles rupture and thus sustained disability and unable to work as he was working earlier and thus prayed for compensation of ₹.10,00,000/- with 12% interest.

4. After receipt of notice of the claim petition, first respondent appeared through his counsel and filed his objection statement, wherein he admitted the relationship of employer and employee between him and the claimant and also admitted about the accident, but denied about the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant. Further he contended that his tractor-trailers are duly insured with respondent No.2 and thus respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation.

5. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its objection statement, wherein it denied all the averments made in the petition including the employer and employee relationship. Further, it contented that the tractor was duly insured with respondent No.2 as on the date of accident, but trailer was not insured and thus it is not liable to pay the compensation.

6. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining the doctor, who treated him as P.W.2, got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 and closed his side before the Commissioner. On behalf of respondents, respondent No.1 was examined as R.W.2 and on behalf of respondent No.2, the officer of respondent No.2 is examined as R.W.1 and got marked Exs.R.1 and R.2 and closed their side. 7. After reco