Karnataka High Court
Legal Manager vs Smt Ramakka on 4 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:30142
MFA No. 3777 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3777 OF 2016 (WC)
BETWEEN:
LEGAL MANAGER,
IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD.,
CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER,
SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR,
NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF NGEF LAYOUT,
KASTURI NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 043.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RAMAKKA,
W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA,
NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
Digitally signed R/AT NO.80, NAGAPPA COMPOUND,
by NANDINI R CHANNASANDRA, BANGALORE EAST TALUK,
Location: HIGH BANGALORE-67.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. A THIMMARAYAPPA,
SO ABBAIAHAPPA,
MAJOR,
R/AT DODDADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
DODDANALLALA POST,
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE DIST.-62.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SUSHMITHA.G, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI N GOPALKRISHNA FOR R1, ADVOCATE;
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:30142
MFA No. 3777 of 2016
HC-KAR
R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 01.01.2016 PASSED IN
ECA.NO.9/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SMALL
CAUSES JUDGE, & XXVIII ACMM, & EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU, & C/C OF
SMALL CAUSES, JUDGE, XXVI ACMM, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF Rs.5,60,000/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A.
FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Being aggrieved by the judgment and award in ECA No.9/2015 dated 01.01.2016, passed by learned II Additional Small Causes Judge and XXCIII ACMM and Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bengaluru and C/C of Small Causes Judge, XXVI ACMM [the Commissioner], respondent No.2- Insurance Company has approached this Court in appeal under Section 30 (1) of the Employees Compensation Act.
2. The petitioner, Ramakka, is the mother of the deceased Harish. It was stated in the petition that on 17.11.2012, the deceased Harish, under the instructions of the -3- NC: 2025:KHC:30142 MFA No. 3777 of 2016 HC-KAR respondent No.1- Thimmarayappa, along with other coolies had gone to Orohalli village, as a loader and unloader on the container lorry bearing No.KA-08-3012 for loading eucalyptus stumps. The deceased Harish fell down from the lorry at about 10 a.m. when loading the eucalyptus stumps, sustained head injury and died on the spot. The body was subjected to postmortem at Government Hospital, Hoskote. A case of unnatural death was registered by the police in UDR No.39/2012. The petitioner contended that the deceased Harish was a coolie working under respondent No.1 and was earning a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as wages. Therefore, she sought adequate compensation under the provisions of Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 from the owner and insurer of the lorry.
3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry appeared before the Commissioner. The respondent No.1 did not file any objection statement. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company(appellant herein) has filed objection statement contending that there was no such relationship of employee and employer between the deceased -4- NC: 2025:KHC:30142 MFA No. 3777 of 2016 HC-KAR Harish and respondent No.1. But on the other hand, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger in the said vehicle. Therefore, the risk of the gratuitous passenger is not covered by the policy issued by it. It was also contended that the cause of death was not during the course and out of employment. However, the coverage of the policy was admitted.
4. On the basis of the above contentions, as many as five issues were framed by the learned Commissioner. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked. No evidence was led on behalf of the respondents.
5. After hearing the arguments, the learned Commissioner held that there existed the relationship of employee and employer between the deceased Harish and respondent No.1 and that the incident had occurred during the course of employment. As such, it awarded a compensation of Rs.5,60,000/- along with interest.
6. On service of notice, respondent No.1 herein [petitioner] appeared before this Court through her counsel. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:30142 MFA No. 3777 of 2016 HC-KAR Respondent No.2,owner of the vehicle did not appear despite service.
7. Though the appeal was admitted by this Court on 16.12.2021, substantial questions of law are not framed. Therefore, in effect, the appeal is heard on admission.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Insurance Company contend that the respondent No.1 having not entered the witness box, the relationship of employee and employer was not proved as required under law. He submits that the burden of proving such relationship was on the petitioner and her testimony alone would not suffice for the same. He further submits that the ratio laid down in the case of Gottumakkala Appala Narasimharaju and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another (AIR 2007 SC 2907) was not properly considered by the learned Commissioner. Secondly, he submits that the policy do not cover the risk of an employee and therefore, liability could not have been fastened upon the appellant. As a corollary, he submits that the deceased has to be treated as a gratuitous passenger.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:30142 MFA No. 3777 of 2016 HC-KAR
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that both these contentions are adequately dealt by the learned Commissioner in the impugned judgment. It is submitted that the petition having been filed under the provisions of the Workmans' Compensation Act, and the accident having occurred involving the vehicle insured by the appellant, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment when the evidence on record by way of testimony of PW1 and police papers show that there existed the relationship of employee and employer.
10. It is relevant to note that the testimony of PW1 clearly shows that the deceased had gone as a loader on the container lorry owned by respondent No.1 to the land of one Nanjundappa, and he was to load eucalyptus stumps. The evidence also shows that the deceased fell down from the lorry, fell into a ditch by the side of the road, sustained injuries and died. On the basis of the complaint filed by one Narayanappa, who is none else than the father of the deceased a case of unnatural death was registered by the police. In the said complaint, which had the advantage of spontaneity, it is clearly -7- NC: 2025:KHC:30142 MFA No. 3777 of 2016 HC-KAR mentioned that the deceased was an employee of respondent No.1. The inquest report at Ex.P3 also establishes the same. Further, respondent No.1 while getting the vehicle released from the police, had admitted in the indemnity bond executed by him that the deceased was his employee.
11. These documents are not rebutted by any cogent evidence by the appellant. There is no reason to discard them. Therefore, there cannot be any doubt that the deceased was an employee of respondent No.1, who is the owner of the lorry. It also cannot be disputed that the incident occurred when the deceased was carrying out his job as an employee of respondent No.1. As such, the question as to whether the deceased was an employee of respondent No.1 and whether the incident was during the course and out of employment have been properly decided by the learned Commissioner.
12. The learned Commissioner has also considered the question as to whether the employee in a goods carriage vehicle is statutorily covered under the insurance of policy are not. Section 147(1) of the M.V. Act, is examined by the learned Commissioner and rightly it was held that such coverage exists. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:30142 MFA No. 3777 of 2016 HC-KAR
13. The judgment in the case of Gottumakkala Appala Narasimharaju and others Vs. National Insurance Company Limited and another (supra) is not applicable to the case on hand since it was a case where the deceased and the owner were husband and wife and there cannot be such relationship of employer and employee between them simply because the contention was taken that they were living separate. As such, the said case may be distinguished on facts.
14. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that there exists no substantial question of law that needs to be examined. In the result, the appeal is bereft of merits and as such, the appeal is dismissed.
15. The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the learned Commissioner.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37