Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager vs Iravva Nigappa Bajanavar on 2 September, 2025
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23436 OF 2013 (WC)
BETWEEN:
DIVISIONAL MANAGAER,
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COM. LTD.,
CLUB ROAD, DIST. BELAGAVI,
REP BY DEPUTY MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
LAMINGTON ROAD, HUBLI-20.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADV)
AND:
1. SMT. IRAVVA NIGAPPA BAJANAVAR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: GUDAMKERI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
2. KUMAR FAKKIRAPPA NIGAPPA BAJANAVAR
AGE: 07 YEARS, MINOR, SINCE MINOR R/BY
HIS MOTHER IRAVVA NIGAPPA BAJANAVAR
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD
R/O: GUDAMKERI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
3. KUMARI YALLAVVA NIGAPPA BAJANAVAR
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
AGE: 05 YEARS, MINOR, SINCE MINOR R/BY
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date:
HER MOTHER IRAVVA NIGAPPA BAJANAVAR
2025.09.04
11:39:10 +0530
AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD
R/O: GUDAMKERI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
4. SMT. MALLAVVA FAKKIRAPPA BAJANAVAR
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD,
R/O: GUDAMAKERI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM
5. NIGAPPA FAKKIRAPPA BAJANAVAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O: GUDAMAKERI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
-2-
6. NAGAPPA FAKIRAPPA BAJANAVAR,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O: GUDUMKERI, PO. SATTIGERI
TQ. SOUNDATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADV FOR R1 TO R4
R2 & R3 ARE MINORS R/BY R1 AND
SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADV FOR R6
APPEAL AGAINST DECEASED R5 IS DISMISSED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WORKMEN COMPENSAION
ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.C.A/SR-213/2009 ON THE
FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-2 BELAGAVI AND PLEASE TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 05.07.2013 PASSED BY
THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-2, BELAGAVI IN W.C.A/SR-213/2009.
THIS MISCELLANEAOUS FIRST APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 29.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the Judgment and Award dated 05.07.2013 in WCA/SR-213/2009 passed by the Labour Officer and The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Sub Division-II, Belagavi, regarding the liability ( hereinafter referred to as " the Commissioner") -3-
2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
3. The claimants have filed the petition before the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation seeking a compensation of Rs. 600,000/- with interest at the rate of 18%, under section 22 of the Workmen compensation Act,1923. It is contended that, the claimants are dependants of the deceased Ningappa Fakkirappa Bhajanavar. It is contended that, the deceased Ningappa was working as a Coolie under Respondent No. 6 herein/ Employer in a Tractor bearing Reg. No. KA-24/T-71 and Trailer No. CTW-9812. On, 09-06-2009 when the deceased was proceeding in the Tractor from Gilihosur Village, Gokak, by looking Eucalyptus Tree and on 10-06- 2009 when they came near Madamgeri village, the Driver of the said Vehicle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner to endanger the human life and as a result caused accident near Madamgeri cross. As a result, the deceased Ningappa sustained grivious injuries and succumbed to the -4- injuries at the spot. It is contended that the deceased was aged about 30 years and used to earn Rs. 125 per day as daily wage from Respondent No. 1/ Employer. It is contended that the accident occurred during the course of the employment and accordingly, prays to award the compensation.
4. A notice was served on Respondent No. 1/ Employer. Despite the service of notice, Respondent No. 1/ employer before the Commissioner remained absent and was placed exparte.
5. The Insurance Company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that, the vehicle involved in the accident is made for agricultural purpose and insured under Kissan Package Policy. The deceased is the gratitious passenger. There is a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is contended that the driver was not possessing a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the claim petition. -5-
6. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.
7. The claimants, to substantiate their claim, claimant No. 1 was examined as PW1 and 6 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. Conversely, an official of Insurance Company was examined as RW1 and 4 documents were marked as RW 2-1 to RW 2-4.
8. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, awarded the compensation of Rs. 3,63,965.00 and directed to pay the interest at the rate of 12% after 30 days from the date of Judgment till the same is deposited with the Commissioner. The Commissioner also directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 30 days, before the commissioner.
9. The Insurance Company/ Respondent No. 2 before the commissioner, aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed in WCA/SR-213/2009 dated 05.07.2013 filed this Appeal.
-6-
10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the Insurance company, learned counsel for the claimants and the learned counsel for the Owner of the vehicle/ Employer.
11. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the said Tractor was insured under the Kissan Package Policy and was made for the Agricultural purpose only. He submits that, the deceased is the gratuitous passenger and not covered under the insurance policy. He submits that the Driver of the Tractor did not possess a valid and effective Driving License as of the date of the Accident. Therefore, there is a violation of Insurance Policy conditions. He submits that the accident occurred on 10.06.2009 and also relying upon Ex. R.2-4, submits that the driver of the Tractor held a license which is valid between 14.07.2009 to 30.06.2029, which was not in force as of the date of the accident. He submits that neither the learners license nor the driving license was produced to prove that the driver of the Tractor possessed a valid -7- Driving license as of the date of the accident. He submits that the commissioner committed an error in saddling the liability on the Insurance Company under the presumption that the Driver of the said Tractor might have held a learners license as of the date of the Accident, having reference to Ex. R. 2-4.He also submits that the deceased Ningappa and the owner/ employer are brothers and the instant claim petition is a collusive one to claim the compensation. He submits that the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is perverse and arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.
12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants/ Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein, supported the impugned judgment and award and submits that, the commissioner has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly answered issue No 1 and 2 in the affirmative. She submits that there is a Employer and Employee relationship between the deceased and Respondent No 6/ Employer. -8- She places reliance on the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of T. S. Shylaja Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. and Anr. Reported in AIR 2014 SCC 893, to buttress her arguments. She submits that, though the claimants and the complainant are relatives, the said fact cannot deprive the right of the claimants to claim the compensation. She submits that, merely on the basis of identical names of the deceased and Respondent No. 6, the claimants cannot be deprived of their right. She submits that the dispute between the insurer and insured under the Workmen compensation Act, 1923 cannot deprive the claimants. She submits that the commissioner was justified in awarding the compensation to the claimants.
13. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the Employer/owner/ Respondent No. 6 herein, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the driver of the Tractor held a valid and effective license as of the date of the accident. He submits that, before issuing the Driving license, the driver must have been issued with the learners -9- license which would be valid for 6 months. He submits that the person is issued with a driving license after completion of 30 days from the date of issuance of the learners license. Therefore, in the present case, the driver of the Tractor/offending vehicle held a learners license as of the date of the accident. He submits that the learners license held by the driver of the tractor is a valid one and has an effect of Driving license in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 . He, having reference to Rules 14 and 15 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988, submits that the presumption of possessing a learners license as of the date of accident could be drawn since the accident occurred on 10.06.2009 and as per Ex. R.2- the driver held a valid license from 14.07.2009 to 30.06.2029. he submits that the driving license will not be issued, unless the person possessed a learners license. He submits that the commissioner was justified in passing the impugned
- 10 -
judgment and award. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
14. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
15. This Court, on 18/02/2022, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law:
1) Whether the Commissioner for Workmens compensation was justified in saddling the liability on the insurer of the offending tractor trailer bearing Reg. No. KA-25/T-718 and CTW-9812 when the insure had specifically contended that the vehicle was used in violation of the conditions as the driver had no valid and effective license to drive the offending tractor trailer as on the date of accident?
2) Whether the Commissioner for Workmens compensation was justified in taking the wages of the deceased at Rs.
4,500 per month in view of section 4(1)(a) of the Employees compensation Act?
Reg. Substantial Question of Law No. 1:
16. The Claimants have filed a Claim Petition under section 22 of the Workmen's compensation Act 1923
- 11 -
claiming a compensation on account of the death of Sri. Ningappa during the course of the employment. It is the case of the claimants that, the deceased Ningappa was working as a Coolie under Respondent No.6 herein in a Tractor bearing Reg. No. KA-24/T-71 and Trailer No. CTW- 9812, and on 10-06-2009, the deceased met with an accident, sustained injuries, and succumbed to the injuries at spot during the course of employment. To prove the claim of the claimants, Claimant No. 1 was examined as PW1 and produced the documents. The claimants have produced a FIR marked as Ex.P1 which discloses that a criminal case in Crime No 205/09 in Muragod Police Station. Ex P 2 is the statement of the driver of the offending vehicle/ Tractor. Ex. P-3 is the spot Panchanama. Ex. P-4 is a Motor vehicle Accident report. Ex. P-5 is a copy of chargesheet which discloses the name of the Driver of the offending vehicle as the Accused therein. Ex. P-6 is a copy of post mortem report, which discloses that Ningappa died due to an injury to brain injury and the multiple injuries.
- 12 -
17. In rebuttal, an official of the Insurance Company was examined as RW 1 and reiterated the averments made in their statement of objections and deposed that driver of the tractor did not hold a valid and effective licence as of the date of the accident and the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy have been violated. To prove its defence, the Insurance Company has produced the documents. Ex R 2- 1 is the authorization letter authorizing RW1 to prosecute the present case on behalf of Insurance Company. Ex R 2-2 is a copy of Insurance policy of the offending vehicle. Ex R 2-3 is a copy of chargesheet which is filed against the driver of the tractor. Ex R 2-4 is an endorsement issued by ARTO Bailhongal dated 04.02.2011 which discloses that the driver of the tractor was issued with the Driving license from 14.07.2009 to 30.06.2029 to drive the tractor.
18. From perusal of the evidence on record, there is no dispute regarding the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment and that the deceased succumbed to the injuries. The core issue/ crucial question,
- 13 -
on which this appeal revolves around is, whether the driver of Respondent No. 6/ owner of the Tractor possessed a valid license (Learners license ) as of the date of the accident as, subsequently, he was issued with the valid Driving license as per Ex. R 2-4.
19. A perusal of Exhibit R2-4, which is an endorsement issued by the ARTO, reveals that, the driver of the tractor was issued with the Driving license, which is valid from 14.07.2009 to 30.06.2029. Admittedly, the accident occurred on 10.06.2009, as of the date of which, the driver was not in possession of the valid driving license.
20. Learned counsel for the owner of the Tractor/ Respondent No. 6 herein, submits that, before issuing the Driving license, the driver must have been issued with the learners license, which would be valid for 6 months. He submits that the person is issued with a driving license after completion of 30 days from the date of issuance of the learners license. He also submits that the presumption
- 14 -
could be drawn regarding the possession of the learners license by the driver of the vehicle.
21. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the owner of the vehicle did not plead regarding the possession of the learners license by the driver of the offending vehicle as of the date of the accident. The owner of the Tractor/ Respondent No. 6 herein, did not take basic care of verifying the driving license of the driver of the Tractor. No evidence was placed on record to show that the driver was possessing the learners license as of the date of the accident and no efforts were made before the commissioner, either to summon the records from the concerned RTO Office or to summon any officer therefrom.
22. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of BELI RAM V RAJINDER KUMAR in C.A. Nos. 7220-7221 of 2011 disposed of, on 23-09-2020, reiterated the view that, when an employer Employees a driver, it is his duty to check that the driver is duly licensed to drive the vehicle. A person when he hands over a Motor vehicle to. Driver, owes some
- 15 -
responsibility to society at large. Admittedly, the case on hand the owner of the vehicle neither took care of verifying the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle as of the date of the accident nor pleaded regarding the possession of learners license by the driver as of the date of the accident.
23. In a Claim for Motor vehicle Accident compensation cases, the initial burden is on the insurer to prove that there is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy, and thereafter, the onus shifts on the insured to prove that he has taken sufficient steps to ensure that there was no breach of policy terms and conditions as of the date of the accident. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate that there is no breach of insurance policy conditions i.e., the driver of the tractor possessed a valid learners license as of the date of the accident as he was subsequently issued with a valid Driving license as per Ex. R 2-4.
- 16 -
24. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 herein / Owner of the tractor submits that, a presumption could be drawn, of the driver having been possessed a learners license as of the date of the accident, referring to Rule 14 and 15 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. At this juncture, it is necessary to examine Rule 14 and 15 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 which reads as follows:
14. Application for a driving licence.--
17[(1)] An application for a driving licence shall be made in Form 4 and shall be accompanied by-
(a) an effective learner's licence to drive the vehicle of the type to which the application relates;
(b) appropriate fee as specified in rule 32, for the test of competence to drive and issue of licence;
(c) three copies of the applicant's recent 14[passport size photograph];
(d) save as otherwise provided in rule 6, a medical certificate in 14[Form 1A];
(e) a driving certificate in Form 5 issued by the school or establishment from where the applicant received instruction, if any.
(f) proof of residence,
(g) proof of age.
(h) proof of citizenship.
(2) An application for an International Driving Permit shall be made in Form 4A and shall be accompanied by--
(a) valid driving licence issued by the licensing authority under these rules;
(b) appropriate fee as specified in rule 32;
(c) three copies of the applicant's recent passport photograph;
(d) a medical certificate in Form 1A;
(e) valid proof of Indian Nationals;
(f) valid proof of passport; and
(g) valid proof of visa, wherever applicable.]
- 17 -
15. Driving test.--
(1) No person shall appear for the test of competence to drive unless he has held a learner's licence for a period of at least [thirty days.] (2) The test of competence to drive referred to in sub-section (3) of section 9 shall be conducted by the licensing authority or such other person as may be authorised in this behalf by the State Government in a vehicle of the type to which the application relates. (3) The applicant shall satisfy the person conducting the test that he is able to--
(a) adjust the rear-view mirror;
(b) take suitable precautions before starting the engine;
(c) move away safely and smoothly straight ahead at an angle, while at the same time engaging all gears until the top gear is reached;
(d) to change to the lower gears quickly from the top gear when the traffic conditions warrant such change;
(e) change quickly to lower gears when driving downhill;
(f) stop and re-start the vehicle on a steep upward incline making proper use of the hand-brake or of the throttle and the foot-brake without any rolling back, turn right and left corners correctly and make proper use of the rear-view mirror before signalling;
(g) overtake, allow to be overtaken, meet or cover the path of other vehicles safely and take an appropriate course of the road with proper caution giving appropriate signals;
(h) give appropriate traffic signals at the appropriate time, in clear and unmistakable manner by hand or by electrical indicators fitted to the vehicle;
(i) change the lanes with proper signals and with due care;
(j) stop the vehicle in an emergency or otherwise, and in the latter case, bring it to rest at an appropriate course on the road safely, giving appropriate signals;
(k) in the case of vehicle having a reverse gear, driving the vehicle backwards, reverse it into a limited opening either to the right or left under control and with reasonable accuracy;
(l) cause the vehicle to face in the opposite direction by means of forward and reverse gears;
(m) take correct and prompt action on the signals given by traffic signs, traffic lights, traffic controllers, policemen and take appropriate action on signs given by other road users;
(n) act correctly at pedestrian crossings, which are not regulated by traffic lights or traffic police, by giving preference to persons crossing the roads;
(o) keep well to the left in normal driving;
(p) regulate speed to suit varying road and traffic conditions;
- 18 -
(q) demonstrate general control of the vehicle by confident steering and smooth gear changing and braking as and when necessary;
(r) make proper use of the rear-view mirror before signalling, beginning manoeuvring, moving away, altering the course to overtake, turning right or stopping;
(s) use the proper side when driving straight, turning right, turning left and at junction of the road;
(t) make proper use of accelerator, clutch, gears, brakes (hand and foot) steering and horn;
(u) anticipate the actions of pedestrians, drivers of other vehicles and cyclists
(v) take precautions at crossroads and on road junctions with regard to--
(i) adjustment of speed on approach,
(ii) proper use of rear-view mirror,
(iii) correct positioning of the vehicle before and after turning to the right or left,
(iv) avoidance of cutting right hand corners,
(v) looking right, left and right again before crossing or emerging; (w) concentrate in driving without his attention being distracted and to demonstrate the presence of mind;
(x) show courtesy and consideration for the safety and convenience of other road users, such as pedestrians, drivers of other motor vehicles or cyclists.
25. A perusal of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1989, makes it clear that an application for a Driving License should be accompanied by an effective learners license to drive the vehicle of the type to which the application relates. A perusal of Rule 15 of the Rules of 1989 makes it clear that a person cannot appear for the test of competence to drive unless he has held a learners license for a period of at least thirty days. Admittedly, in the present case, the accident
- 19 -
occurred on 10.06.2009 and the driver of the offending vehicle was issued with a driving license from 14.07.2009 to
30. 06. 2009 as per Ex. R.2-4. No learners license or any document substantiating the possession of learners license as of the date of the accident by the driver of the tractor has been placed on record furtherance of the mandate of Rule 14 and 15 of the Rules of 1989. Non production of learners license creates a doubt in the mind of the court regarding the validity of the learners license as to whether the learners license was expired? Or whether, it was expired as of the date of accident and it was subsequently renewed?. The presumption regarding the possession of the learners license by the driver of the offending vehicle could not be drawn since neither documents are produced to that effect nor the RTO concerned has been examined. The presumption is rebuttable. The counsel's submission in this regard is rejected. The owner of the vehicle/ Respondent No. 6 herein, has failed to prove that the driver of the vehicle possessed a learners license as of the date of the accident.
- 20 -
26. The Commissioner has not adequately considered the said aspect and passed the impugned Judgment and award. The Commissioner was not justified in saddling the liability on the insurer when the insurer had specifically contended that the vehicle was used in violation of the conditions as the driver had no valid and effective license to drive the offending tractor trailer as on the date of accident. In view of the above discussion, substantial Question of Law No. 1 is answered in the negative.
Reg. Substantial Question of Law No. 2:
27. As per Section 4(1)(a) of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923, the income of the deceased is to be considered at Rs. 4000 per month. Hence, the income of the deceased is assessed at Rs. 4000. Since, it is a case of death, an amount equal to 50 percent of the monthly wages of the deceased is to be taken for consideration, which comes to Rs. 2000. The accident occurred in the year 2009, and the age of the deceased Ningappa is taken as 30 years, considering Ex.P6, i.e., the post mortem report. As per
- 21 -
section 4(1)(a) R/w Schedule IV, the relevant factor applicable to the age group of '30' is 207.98. having regard to the above said date, the compensation is calculated as follows:
4000 x 50% = 2000 Applicable factor for the age of 30 is 207.98.
2000x 207.98 = 415,960/- (rounded of to Rs.415,900)
28. The Commissioner, considering the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, has rightly assessed the amount of compensation at Rs. 415,900. Though, the Commissioner, considering the evidence available on record, has taken the monthly wage of the deceased at Rs. 4,500 per month, placing reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. v. Chennamma reported in ILR 2007 KAR 1149 and answered issue No. 4 accordingly, the commissioner has rightly assessed the wage of the deceased at Rs. 4,000 per month as per the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act 1923, and was justified in
- 22 -
answering Issue No. 5 and 6, accordingly. The amount of compensation assessed by the Commissioner is just and proper, and do not call for any inference. In view of the above discussion, substantial Question of Law No. 2 is answered accordingly.
29. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
1. The Appeal is allowed in part.
2. The impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is hereby modified. The claim petition against the Insurance Company is dismissed.
3. The owner / Respondent No. 6 herein is directed to pay the compensation as awarded by the Commissioner, to the claimants.
4. The owner/ Respondent No. 6 herein, is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a
- 23 -
period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
SD/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11