-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

M.F.A.NO.102108/2018 (ECA)

BETWEEN:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,

D.O. CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,

REP. BY DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY,

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,

REGINAL OFFICE, PINTO ROAD,

HUBBALLI-580020.

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI. S V YAJI, ADV.)

AND

1 .

SMT. YALLAWWA W/O RUDRAPPA GOUDAR

AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O: HANAMANATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,

DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590006.

2 .

SHRI.SHANKAREPPA UDACHAPPA INGALAGI

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUISNESS,

R/O: HANAMANATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL,

DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN CODE: 590006.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.Y.LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADV.FOR C/R1

R2-SERVED)

-2-

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF M.V.

ACT,

AGAINST

THE

JUDGMENT

AND

AWARD

DATED

09.04.2018, PASSED IN ECA.NO.328/2014, ON THE FILE OF

THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & COMMISSIONER

FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, BELAGAVI, AWARDING

COMPENSATION OF Rs.3,99,120/- WITH INTEREST AT 12%

P.A. FROM THE DATE OF DEATH TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Though this matter is listed for orders today, with

the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for

final disposal.

2.

The appeal is by the Insurance Company

challenging the validity of judgment and award dated

09.04.2018 passed in ECA No.328/2014 on the file of the

Commissioner for workmen’s compensation, Belagavi.

3.

The brief facts, which are necessary for

disposal of the appeal are as under:

A claim petition came to be filed under Section 22 of

the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which is now called as

-3-

Employees Compensation Act, claiming compensation on

account of the death of one Rudrappa @ Goudappa

Goudar in an accident alleged to have occurred during the

course of employment with respondent No.1. It is further

contended that the claimant is the mother of the

deceased and the deceased, who was working as labourer

in the tractor bearing No.KA-24/T-8684 and Trolley

bearing No. T 8685, belonging to respondent No.1. The

said tractor and trailer duly insured with respondent No.2

Insurance Company (appellant). The deceased was paid

Rs.4500/- per month as wages and Rs.50/- per day as

Bhatta.

4.

The claim petition was resisted by filing the

detailed written statement. The Workmen’s Compensation

Commissioner based on the rival contentions, raised

necessary issues and after considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, categorically recorded a

finding that the deceased was employer with the first

-4-

respondent as a laborer in the tractor and he was paid

monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- and also came to the

conclusion that the Insurance Company is liable to pay

the compensation awarded in a sum of Rs.3,99,120/-

with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Being

aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company is in

appeal.

5.

Sri S.V.Yaji, learned counsel representing the

appellant/Insurance Company challenged the validity of

the impugned judgment and award on the ground that

driver did not posses valid driving licence to drive the

tractor and therefore, the Insurance Company is not

liable to pay the compensation. Further, it is contended

that though the application was filed by the Insurance

Company and took out the witness summons on the

owner of the tractor and trailer, the owner did not

respond to the witness summons despite proper service

of the witness summons. Therefore, it should be

-5-

presumed that the driver of the tractor did not posses a

valid driving licence and hence, the Insurance Company

is not liable to pay the compensation. He also contended

that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and not a

workmen and therefore, the Insurance Company is not

liable to pay the compensation. Further, he a