Karnataka High Court
Dhananjaya And Anr vs The Chief Engineer And Anr on 15 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527
MFA No. 200359 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200359 OF 2022 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. DHANANJAYA S/O DEVENDRAPPA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
2. MONAMMA W/O DHANANJAYA KATTIMANI,
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
BOTH ARE R/O.LAXMINAGAR,
YADGIR, TQ. AND DIST. YADGIR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by
BASALINGAPPA AND:
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,
COURT OF GESCOM, MAIN ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 102.
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
O AND M SUB-DIVISION, GESCOM SHAHAPUR,
DIST. YADGIR-585 223.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRUPASAGAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN
COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527
MFA No. 200359 of 2022
HC-KAR
AND AWARD DATED 17.10.2020, PASSED BY THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE'S
COMPENSATION, AT YADGIR, IN FILE BEARING ECA
NO.43/2015, AND ALLOW THE CLAIM PETITION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This appeal is filed calling in question the judgment and award dated 17.10.2020 in ECA No.43/2015 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, at Yadgir, whereby the claim petition was dismissed.
2. Heard, Sri.Veerangouda Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for appellants/claimants and Sri.Krupasagar Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 - GESCOM.
3. Sri.Veerangouda Malipatil, learned counsel with all vehemence submitted that the deceased was working as Grama Vidyut Pratinidhi under respondent Nos.1 and 2 -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527 MFA No. 200359 of 2022 HC-KAR in respect of Khanapur Grama Panchayat. He was a bill Collector on behalf of respondent No.2, died during the course of employment. Accordingly, the application seeking compensation under the Employment Compensation Act.
4. Upon service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their statement of objections denying that the appellant is an employee working under them and was just discharging his duty as an agent and an agent cannot be equated to an employee. Accordingly, sought to dismiss the claim petition.
5. The Tribunal has framed in the following issues:
1. "Whether the petitioners prove that on 08.07.2008 deceased Venkatesh was working as Gram Vidduth Pratinidhi under Khanapur panchayat, he was on official duty, during the course of his employment, while he was returning to Yadgir on Motor Cycle ΝΟ.ΚΑ.33-E-
7830, when he was coming near Doranhalli village, lost control and he fell down and as a result of that he sustained grievous injury in accident arising out of and in the course of his employment under the respondent -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527 MFA No. 200359 of 2022 HC-KAR No.2 and he died during course of treatment?
2. Whether petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, at what rate and against whom?
3. What order or award?".
6. The Tribunal answered in issues No.1 and 2 in 'negative' and proceeded to dismiss the claim petition on the grounds that there is no jural relationship i.e., an employee and employer between the deceased and respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Electricity Company.
7. It is this judgment and award passed by the Tribunal which is called in question in this appeal by the claimants. This Court having heard the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following substantial question of law while admitting this appeal:
"Whether the trial Court was justified in dismissing the claim petition without considering Ex.P.6?".-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527 MFA No. 200359 of 2022 HC-KAR
8. As per the claim petition, the deceased was working as Grama Vidyut Pratinidhi under Khanapur Grama Panchayat under respondent Nos.1 and 2. He was discharging his function as a bill collector on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Exhibit.P.6 which has been issued by respondent No.2 clearly shows that the deceased was working under them as Grama Vidyut Pratinidhi and he died in an accident occurred on 08.07.2022 while discharging his service, which clearly shows that there is a relationship of employer and employee. Though, the learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Company has taken contention that as per Ex.R.1- Agreement, the deceased was working as an agent and accordingly, he cannot be equated to an employee under respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Electricity Company to bring him within the definition of 'employee' under the Employees Compensation Act.
9. Sri.Veerangouda Malipatil, learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, that the world -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527 MFA No. 200359 of 2022 HC-KAR 'managing agent' defined under Section 2(1)(f) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, wherein the definition clearly shows that an agent who has been appointed to act on behalf of or acting as the representative of another person for the purpose of carrying on such other person's trade or business can be considered as an employee and covered under the Employees Compensation Act. Though, the deceased was termed as an agent under Ex.R.1 - Agreement the certificate issued at Ex.P.6 both conjointly and clearly shows that though he was appointed as an agent, but he was discharging his function in the trade or business i.e., the collection of electricity bill on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Electricity Company comes with the definition of 2(1)(f) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 and is an employee of respondents - corporation. The Tribunal has committed an error in not considering these aspects of the matter especially the definition under Section 2(1)(f) of the Employees' Compensation Act, -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527 MFA No. 200359 of 2022 HC-KAR 1923. Hence this Court is of the opinion that there is a jural relationship of employer and employee between respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the deceased.
10. Since the matter is of the year 2008, same is considered for disposal on claim instead of remanding with the consent of both the learned counsel. Accordingly, issue No.2 is answered in 'negative' by the Tribunal, which requires consideration since it is a claim petition filed under the Employees Compensation Act. The accident having occurred in the year, 2008, the income fixed under the act is Rs.4,000/- p.m., which is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents - Electricity Company. Accordingly, the income as taken at Rs.4,000/- is just and proper. Since it is a case of death, 50% of the income is to be deducted while calculating compensation towards loss of dependency along with the appropriate factor. The deceased was aged 28 years as on the date of his death. The proper factor applicable is '211.79' and the same is considered. Accordingly, the compensation -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527 MFA No. 200359 of 2022 HC-KAR towards "Loss of Dependency" is awarded at Rs.4,23,580/- (4,000 x 211.79 x 50 /100). The appellants - claimants are entitled for sum of Rs.2,500/- towards 'Funeral Expenses'. Accordingly, appellants/claimants are entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,26,080/- with permissible interest.
11. For the foregoing reasons, the substantial question of law answered in negative and in favour of claimants and against the electricity company and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is Allowed-In-Part;
(ii) The judgment and award dated 17.10.2020, in ECA.No.43/2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge And Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Yadgir, hereby answering Issue No.1 is set aside and same is answered in -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527 MFA No. 200359 of 2022 HC-KAR affirmative, in favour of claimants and against respondent Nos.1 and 2 - Electricity Company.
(iii) Issue No.2 is answered 'partly affirmative' holding that the appellants/claimants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,26,080/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Twenty Six thousand Eighty rupees only) which shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum in terms of Section 4A the respondent -
corporation is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum 30 days from the date of accident till the entire compensation is deposited. The amount of compensation ordered shall be deposited by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order before the appropriate Tribunal.
(iv) Upon deposit by respondent Nos.1 and 2 appellants entitled 50% each along with accrued
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5527 MFA No. 200359 of 2022 HC-KAR interest and amount stated supra be released in their favour on proper identification.
Sd/-
(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE AMM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7