NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD vs SRI RANGANATHACHAR @ RANGACHAR
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62193
MFA No. 816 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010048692014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.816 OF 2014 (WC)
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
GANDHI BAZAR BANGALORE-4,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
#144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX,
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
SRI R.LAKSHMANA RAO.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI BHUVAN B.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B C SEETHA RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI RANGANATHACHAR @ RANGACHAR
S/O LATE PATHLA RANGACHAR,
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRs
2(a) SMT.VINODAMMA
SRI RANGANATHACHAR @ RANGACHAR,
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HER LRs
2(b) SMT.MANJAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
D/O LATE RANGANATHACHAR @ RANGACHAR
2(c) SRI UMESH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O LATE RANGANATHACHAR
@ RANGACHAR
Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62193
MFA No. 816 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010048692014
BOTH R/A BACHENAHATTI,
KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
3. SRI RAMESH
S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY,
RD
R/A NO.442, 3 MAIN ROAD,
THIMMENAHALLI,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
CORPORATION COLONY,
BANGALORE - 79.
(OWNER OF AUTO NO.KA-02-B-1988)
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI B.N.GOPAL KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 (b & c);
V/C/O DTD 08.08.2019 SERVICE OF NOTICE FOR R3 IS H/S]
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C.ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED 15.7.2013 PASSED IN WCA/CWC/F/CR-
23/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, RAMANAGAR
DISTRICT, RAMANAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF
RS.3,85,162/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A WITHIN 30 DAYS
FROM THE DATE OF ORDER.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 15.07.2013
passed by Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62193
MFA No. 816 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010048692014
Commissioner, Ramanagar District, Ramanagar,
( 'Commissioner' , for short) in WCA no.23/2010, this appeal is
filed.
2. Sri Bhuvan B.M., learned counsel appearing for Sri
Seetha Rama Rao B.C., advocate for appellant submitted that
appeal was by insurer challenging finding of Commissioner on
relationship of employer and employee and consequently for
setting aside of award.
3. Brief facts leading to this appeal as stated were that
at 10:00 pm on 17.06.2010, when Prakash ( employee ) was
driving Auto Rickshaw no.KA-02/B-3988 belonging to one
Ramesh S/o Narsimha Murthy ( owner / employer ) on Magadi
- Bangalore road ferrying passengers, Auto Rickshaw dashed
against stub of fallen tree and thereby toppled. In accident,
Prakash sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to same
while under treatment. It was stated that at time of accident,
deceased Prakash was 23 years of age, working as driver and
getting sum of Rs.300/- per day. Claiming compensation
towards loss of dependency, his parents filed application under
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62193
MFA No. 816 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010048692014
Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (' WC Act ')
against insurer and employer.
4. Claim petition was opposed on all grounds,
including specific contention about disputing relationship of
employer and employee, based on which, Commissioner framed
issues and recorded evidence.
5. In support of claim petition, claimant no.1 - father
of deceased deposed as PW.1 and got marked FIR, Charge
Sheet, Mahazar, Accident Spot Sketch, Motor Vehicle
Inspector's Report, Inquest Panchanama, Ration Card, SSLC
Marks Card, Medical Bills and Prescriptions, Driving Licence and
Post-mortem Report marked as Exs.P1 to P12. On other hand,
owner did not appear and was placed ex-parte . Only insurer led
evidence by examining its official as RW.1 and getting marked
copies of insurance policy, notice issued to owner and
authorization letter as Exs.R1 to R3.
6. On consideration, Commissioner passed impugned
award holding relationship of employer and employee,
occurrence of accident in course of and out of employment as
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62193
MFA No. 816 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010048692014
established and claimants being entitled for compensation of
Rs.3,85,162/-. Aggrieved by same, appeal was filed.
7. It was submitted that appeal was admitted on
18.03.2021 on following substantial questions of law.
1. Whether the Commissioner acted contrary
to law in making the appellant liable to
indemnify their insured against the award
made for the death of the cleaner whose
risk is neither covered under the policy or
under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles
Act?
2. Whether the order/award of the trial Court
is otherwise opposed to law, material
evidence on record?
8. It was submitted that finding of Commissioner
about relationship of employer and employee was without any
basis and contrary to material record. Drawing attention of this
Court to observations of Commissioner while answering issues
no.1 and 2 after enumerating documents relied upon by
claimants, without any reasoning conclusion was arrived at that
relationship of deceased would answered description of
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62193
MFA No. 816 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010048692014
employee. It was submitted that complaint would in fact
contain an assertion that deceased had obtained Auto Rickshaw
on hire. Statements of claimant no.1 - Ranganathachar, father
of deceased along with Narayanappa and Venkatesh recorded
at time of inquest panchanama mentioned would corroborate
same. It was submitted that in course of cross-examination,
suggestions were made about failure to produce any documents
to substantiate employment. Except denial there was no effort
on part of claimants to substantiate relationship. It was further
submitted even while giving finding on issue no.3,
Commissioner had observed that there was no material to
substantiate wages filed by claimants, which would substantiate
that finding of Commissioner about relationship of employer
and employee was without any basis and in fact contrary to
material on record and as such would be perverse. Therefore,
sought for allowing appeal.
9. On other hand, Sri B.N. Gopal Krishna, learned
counsel for respondents - claimants opposed appeal and would
make fervent prayer for remand of matter. It was submitted
that statements of Ranganathachar - claimant no.1,
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62193
MFA No. 816 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010048692014
Narayanappa and Venkatesh referred to inquest panchanama
were not signed and could not be relied upon. Noting in
complaint about taking Auto Rickshaw on hire would be
misunderstanding and in fact deceased was operating Auto
Rickshaw for owner and after remission of entire collection of
day, driver would be paid Rs.300/- and when same is
considered, he would fall within definition of employee and
award would be unacceptable. It was further submitted owner
had remained ex-parte and in case this Court comes to
conclusion about lack of evidence to establish relationship of
employer and employee, matter may be remitted back.
10. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment, award and as well as copies of relevant records
furnished by learned counsel for appellant along with memo.
11. Substantial questions of law framed are about
perversity of finding of Commissioner about relationship of
employer and employee. Bare perusal of impugned award
would indicate that only basis for Commissioner holding said
issues in favour of claimants are police investigation records.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62193
MFA No. 816 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010048692014
Perusal of FIR and complaint would not indicate that deceased
Prakash was taking Auto Rickshaw on hire from owner on terms
as sought to be contended by learned counsel for claimants
that deceased was being paid Rs.300/- per day by owner.
There is no material to substantiate same. On contrary
contents of complaint would indicate Auto Rickshaw being
taken on hire in which case, deceased would not be an
employee, but hirer of vehicle who would not be covered under
Workmen's Compensation Act. Infact, there is absolutely no
reasoning on finding about relationship of employer and
employee, rendering finding perverse.
12. Insofar as request for remand, it is seen that in
course of cross-examination of deceased father, insurer made
clear suggestions about lack of material to establish
relationship of employer and employee as well as possibility of
examination of employer. Except denial, there is no effort on
part of claimants. Besides contents of complaint, inquest
panchanama recording statements of father of deceased as well
as two others would also indicate that Auto Rickshaw was being
taken on hire. In view of above material and insurer having
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62193
MFA No. 816 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010048692014
taken a specific contention and led evidence to substantiate
same, Commissioner would not be justified in arriving at
conclusion, that too without any reasoning. Hence, substantial
questions of law are answered in favour of insurer.
Consequently, following:
ORDER
succeeds
i) Appeal .
ii) Judgment and award dated 15.07.2013
passed by Commissioner in WCA
set-aside
no.23/2010, is .
iii) Claim petition filed by claimants is
dismissed
.
iv) Amount in deposit is ordered to be
refunded to appellant - insurer.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19