IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

MFA NO 23759 OF 2013 (WC)

BETWEEN

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,

BELLARY DISTRICT,REPRESENTED BY ITS,

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. SHASHANK HEDGE, ADV. FOR

SMT. PREETI SHASHANK, ADV.)

AND

1 . LAKSHMIKANTHAREDDY S/O KUMAR REDDY,

AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: X LOADER,

THORANGALLU,NEAR R.S., SANDUR TQ,

DIST: BELLARY.

2 . T TIMMAREDDY S/O T HANUMANTHAPPA,

AGE: MAJOR, R/O: THIMMAPURAM VILLAGE,

ANATHAPUR DISTRICT, A P.

(OWNER OF TT UNIT NO.AP-02/

AL-4159-4160)

…RESPONDENTS

(BY NOTICE TO R1 HELD SUFFICIENT

R2 SERVED)

THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WC ACT 1923, AGAINST THE

JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:07.06.2013 PASSED IN CASE NO.LOB-

2/CWC/CR/566/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND

COMMISSIONER

FOR

WORKMENS

COMPENSATION,

SUB-DIVISION-2,

BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.76,135/- WITH INTEREST

AT THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION AND SHALL BE

DEPOSITED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER.

2

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT

DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the insurer filed under Section

30(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 (for

short,

‘Act’)

calling

in

question

the

award

dated

07.06.2013 passed in case NO.LOB-2/CWC/CR/566/2007

by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for

Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-division-II, Ballary (for

short, the ‘Commissioner’).

2. Brief facts are that claimant herein was working

as Hamali in a tractor and trailer bearing registration

No.AP-02/L-4159-4160

owned

by

respondent

No.1

T.Timmareddi and insured with the appellant herein. It is

stated that on 30.06.2007 as per the directions of

respondent No.1, stones were being transported in the

tractor and trailer and at about 6.30 p.m., at the time of

unloading stone from the tractor and trailer, some stone

fell on the claimant and he suffered serious injuries.

3

3. In

the

proceedings

before

the

learned

Commissioner,

respondent

No.1/insured

filed

written

statement admitting employer and employee relationship

and also the fact that the accident had taken place in the

course

of

and

arising

out

of

the

employment

and

respondent No.2/Insurer contested the proceedings by

filing separate written statement.

4. During the enquiry, claimant examined himself as

PW1 and one Dr.Laxmi Narayana was examined as PW.2

and also got marked Exs.P1 to P4. Respondents examined

one of its official witness as R.W.1 and marked 2

documents as Ex.R2(1) and Ex.R 2(2).

5. Upon consideration of the entire materials placed

before

him,

the

learned

Commissioner

awarded

a

compensation of Rs.76,135/- with interest thereon at 12%

per annum.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance

company

submitted

that

employer

and

employee

relationship has not been established by the evidence and

4

further that the learned Commissioner has committed

serious error in computing quantum of compensation. He

had come to the conclusion that claimant was aged 42

years and yet he had applied relevant factor applicable to

the age of 25 years. He therefore submits that the appeal

is liable to be allowed by setting aside the award passed

by the learned Commissioner.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurance

company further submitted that there are clear materials

including the statement of the claimant herein before the

police marked as Ex.P.1 that the tractor and trailer was

being used for commercial purpose inasmuch as at the

time of the accident. Stones were being transported for

laying floor to a hotel near KPCL of Kuduthini. He points

out that the policy covered the risk of the tractor and

trailer for using it for agricultural purpose and not for the

purpose like using for hire and reward for co