-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 31^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

M.F.A.NO. 24162/2012 (WC)

BETWEEN:

ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., BELLARY.

NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL,

II FLOOR, BELLAD BUILDING, GOKUL ROAD,

HUBLI.

...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 .

SMT. RENUKA W/O NIJAGUNI CHABBI,

AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

R/O SANJEEV NAGAR, PO GOKUL VILLAGE,

TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

2 .

KUMAR. BASAVARAJ S/O NIJAGUNI CHABBI,

AGE: 08 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

MINOR REP. BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN

RESPONDENT NO.1,

R/O SANJEEV NAGAR, PO GOKUL VILLAGE,

TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

3 .

KUMAR. RAMESH S/O NIJAGUNI CHABBI,

AGE: 05 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

MINOR REP. BY THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN

RESPONDENT NO.1,

-2-

R/O SANJEEV NAGAR, PO GOKUL VILLAGE,

TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

4 .

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,

M/S VRL LOGISTICS LTD. VAROOR,

TQ: HUBLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

5 .

SMT. LAKSHMAVVA RAMAPPA CHABBI,

AAE: 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,

R/O:NEW RADHAKESHAMATHA,

MANAGALWARPETH, HUBLI,

(SINCE DEAD HAS DELETED ON 23/10/2011)

6 .

M/S BELLAD AND CO. PVT. LTD.,

GABBUR- HUBLI.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA PUROHIT, ADV. FOR

SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1,

R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REP. BY R1,

SRI. HANUMANTH REDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R4,

R5 – DELETED, R6 – SERVED)

*****

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

THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:15.03.2012 PASSED IN

WCA/F-10/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND

COMMISSIONER

FOR

WORKMEN

COMPENSATION,

SUB-

DIVISION-2, HUBLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 4,

03,320/- 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 MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH IA

NO.1/2021 FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED

THE FOLLOWING:

-3-

JUDGMENT

Though the matter is listed for admission and orders on

IA today, with the consent of both the parties, matter is taken

up for final disposal.

2. IA No.1/2021 is filed for production of additional

documents on behalf of the respondent No.4, supported by

the affidavit.

3. Heard Sri Nagaraj C.Kolloori, learned counsel for

appellant; Sri Raghavendra Purohit, for Sri Dinesh M. Kulkarni,

learned counsel for respondent No.1; and Sri Hanumantha

Reddy Sahukar, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

4. In the affidavit, it is contended that the deceased is

not the employee of the VRL and in fact, it is the duty of the

person who supplied chassis to VRL to deliver the chassis to

the place where the VRL wanted the chassis to be delivered

and deceased was employed with the Sai Motors to deliver the

chassis to the place at Hiriyur, where the accident said to have

occurred near Chitradurga and therefore, the deceased cannot

-4-

be construed as the employee of the VRL even though, VRL

has taken the insurance that the chassis to be delivered at

Hubli from Bengaluru. He further contended that the said

aspect of the matter goes to the very root of the matter

inasmuch as in the absence of employer – employee

relationship, the very petition before the Commissioner for

Workmen Compensation itself would not be maintainable and

these records have to be placed before the Commissioner for

Workmens Compensation for fresh consideration.

5. Sri D.M. Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of Sri Raghavendra Purohit, however, submitted that

the claimant was the employee of the VRL Logistics Ltd., but

no documents are made available to substantiate the said

aspect. In such circumstances, a person having lost his life

and there is a serious dispute as to the employer and

employee relationship and the document now sought to be

produced throw some light as to whom the claimant can lay

claim for loss of life of her husband, it is just and necessary to