: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF MARCH 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO

M.F.A. NO.20822/2012 (WC)

BETWEEN

RELIANCE GIC LTD., BELLARY,

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS

DEPUTY MANAGER LEGAL CLAIMS

DESAI CROSS, DESHAPANDE NAGAR,

HUBLI.

.....APPELLANT

(BY SRI NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADV.)

AND

1.

B DHANANJAY S/O. B. RAMUDU

AGE : 30 YRS, OCC : EX-DRIVER,

R/O. CHELLAGURKI,

TQ AND DIST : BELLARY.

2.

M. CHITTAKALA W/O. M. CHITRAYYA

AGE : MAJOR, OCC : BUSINESS,

R/O. DOR NO.1, D. HIREHAL MANDALAM,

TQ : RAYADURGA, DIST : ANANTAPUR (AP).

…..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI MANJUNATH G PATIL, ADV. FOR R-1

R-2 DISPENSED WITH)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30 OF W.C. ACT, AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND ORDER DT:28.10.2011, PASSED IN W.C.A NF -

: 2 :

105/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND

COMMISSIONER

FOR

WORKMENS

COMPENSATION,

SUB-

DIVISION-2, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF

RS.1,55,001/- 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 appeal is directed against the order dated

28.10.2011 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s

Compensation and Labour Officer, Sub-Division-2, Ballari

(for brevity, hereafter referred to as ‘the Commissioner’) in

KaABa-2/KaNaPa/CR-105/2010.

2.

In order to avoid confusion and overlapping,

parties are addressed in accordance with the rankings held

by them before the Commissioner.

3.

The present appeal is filed by the Reliance

General Insurance Company Limited, Ballari against B.

Dhananjay. It is stated that the first respondent instituted

: 3 :

a claim petition on account of injuries sustained by him in

the road traffic accident occurred on 15.05.2008 and he

sustained massive injuries. He was working as driver of

auto bearing registration No.AP-02/W-9687 under the

employment of second respondent. Thus, compensation is

claimed for the injuries sustained stated to have been

caused due to the accident occurred in the course of

employment. The Commissioner partly allowed the claim

petition and awarded compensation of Rs.1,55,001/-

together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after 30 days

from the date of order till deposit.

4.

Sri Nagaraj C. Kolloori, learned counsel for

insurance company would submit that the relationship of

employer and employee though not disputed, the fact is

that the driver was not possessing employment under the

second respondent. Further, the claimant who was the

driver of the offending vehicle did not posses a driving

licence containing the endorsement to drive the transport

vehicle or carrying passengers. On the other hand,

: 4 :

claimant has produced licence to drive light motor vehicle

which was not permitted for carrying passengers. He

would further submit that the Commissioner has erred in

taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- p.m. and

in awarding higher compensation.

5.

Learned counsel for claimant opposes the

appeal.

6.

Heard the arguments and perused the records.

7.

It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained

injuries in the road traffic accident which occurred on

15.05.2008 in course of his employment. Though the

insurance company disputes the relationship of employer

and employee, neither any documentary evidence except

the policy nor any oral evidence has been adduced before

the Commissioner. Now it cannot agitate the same before

this Court. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, the Commissioner has rightly taken the income

of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- p.m. for the accident of the

: 5 :

year 2008 and awarded compensation of Rs.1,55,001/-

adopting the applicable factor 215.28.

8.

The contention of the Insurance Company that

the driver did not posses a dr