The Divisional Manager v. Smt. Malligamma

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6656 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER M/S. THE ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD. OPP. TO FIRE BRIGADE SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE.

NOW REPRESENTED BY M/s. THE ORIENTAL INS. CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE NO.44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX TP HUB, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS BANGALORE - 560 025 REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SURESH K., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1SMT. MALLIGAMMA W/O SRI MAHADEVAPPA S/O SRI MUDDAMALLAPPA CHOULTRY STREET HULLAHALLI NANJANAGUDI TALUK - 571 314.

¶2SRI K.C. KRISHNAMURTHY S/O SRI K.C. CHINNASWAMY DRIVER OF BUS NO.KA 09 6464 YADIYALA, HULLAHALLI HOBLI

by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

NANJANGUDU TALUK - 571 314.

¶3SRI MAHESH S/O SRI ANKAIAH CONDUCTOR OF BUS NO.KA 09 6464 HAMPAPURA H.D. KOTE TALUK - 571 125.

¶4SRI H.S. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O SRI K.R. SHAMANNA OWNER OF CHAMUNDI BUS HOUSE NO.77, 2ND MAIN ROAD RAMAKRISHNANAGARA, MYSORE - 571 511 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUHAS GOWDA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI MUNIYAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI C.V.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R3 - NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; V/C/O DATED 22.02.2018 - APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS ABATED)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.03.2013 PASSED IN WCA/FC/CR-40/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF Rs.4,15,960/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% FROM AFTER ONE MONTH OF ACCIDENT TILL DEPOSIT.

THIS APPEAL IS 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 30.03.2013 passed by Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mysuru (Commissioner) in ECA no.40/2007, this appeal is filed.

¶2Sri K. Suresh, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by insurer challenging award on three substantial questions of law as framed by this Court on

31.01.2026 while admitting appeal. Firstly, whether applicant claiming to be adoptive mother of deceased could be dependent of deceased; secondly, whether accident occurred in course of employment; and thirdly, on quantum of compensation.

¶3It was submitted, in application filed, respondent-applicant stated that Mooga @ Basavaraju (victim) was her brother and after death of their parents, victim was residing with her and she had adopted him. He was working as a cleaner in Chamundi Bus belonging to respondent no.3 and on

24.02.2006, when as per instructions of employer, he was changing tyre and tube of punctured wheel of Bus near workshop, tyre burst causing injuries to his head and face. Despite treatment at Hospital at HD Kote as well as JSS

Hospital, Mysuru, he succumbed to injuries. Alleging that deceased was earning Rs.2,500/- per month and applicant had lost dependency, application was filed seeking compensation under Sections 10 and 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act) against employer and insurer.

¶4It was submitted, despite service of summons, driver/conductor and owner of Bus did not appear and were placed ex parte. Only insurer appeared and opposed application. Age, occupation, income, employment as well as dependency were denied and application was also opposed on quantum.

¶5Based on pleadings, Commissioner framed following issues: "ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ:

¶1ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÀÄ £Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À°è QèãÀgï DV PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ£ÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀªÀgÉÃ?

¶2CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.02.2006 gÀAzÀÄ vÀ£Àß PÀvÀðªÀå¢AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀvÀðªÀå¤gÀvÀ£ÁVzÁÝUÀ C¥À¥sÁvÀQÌÃqÁV ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛ£ÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©üÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?

¶3CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ, ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À §½ PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ JµÀÄÖ ªÉÃvÀ£À ¤ÃqÀÄvÀÛzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ JµÀÄÖ ªÀAiÀĸÁìVvÉÛAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?

¶4CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÁªÀÅ ªÀÄÈvÀ£À vÁ¬ÄvÀAzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ J®ègÀÆ ªÀÄÈvÀ£À CªÀ®A©vÀgÉAzÀÄ, PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÁAAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ CªÀ®A©vÀgÀÄ JA§ ¥ÀzÀzÀ CxÀð, ªÁSÁå£ÀzÀrAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©üÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?

¶5¥ÀjºÁgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §rØ ºÁUÀÆ zÀAqÀzÀ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀĪÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JµÀÄÖ?

¶6EzÀgÀ §UÉÎ DzÉñÀªÉãÀÄ?"

¶6Thereafter, applicant examined herself and two others and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. Insurer did not lead any evidence.

¶7On consideration, Commissioner answered issues no.1 and 2 in affirmative, issues no.3 and 4 in favour of applicant and issues no.5 and 6 by determining monthly income of deceased as Rs.4,000/-, his age as 30 years and applying factor of 207.98, assessed total compensation of Rs.4,15,960/- and held insurer liable to pay same with interest at 12% p.a. from one month after date of incident. Aggrieved thereby, present appeal was filed.

¶8It was submitted that even as per assertion of claimant in her application, she was adoptive mother of deceased and without producing any records to substantiate adoption, applicant would not answer definition of 'dependent' for purpose of claim under Act. It was further submitted, there was no material produced to substantiate employment of deceased by insured. Even fact that deceased was changing

tyre near workshop would indicate that deceased was an employee of workshop and not of insured. In such case, claim would not be tenable.

¶9It was further submitted, when claimant had stated monthly income of deceased was Rs.2,500/-, assessment by Commissioner taking monthly income of deceased at Rs.4,000/- would be without any basis. On said grounds, prayed for answering said substantial question of law also against claimant and for allowing appeal.

¶10Sri Suhas Gowda M., learned counsel appearing for Sri Muniyappa, advocate for respondent no.1-claimant opposed appeal. Likewise Sri CV Kumar, learned counsel for respondent no.4 also opposed appeal.

¶11They submitted that based on material and record, Commissioner had arrived at finding of fact and no substantial question of law arose for consideration. In absence of substantial question of law, appeal under Section 30 of Act would not be tenable and sought for dismissal.

¶12It was submitted, to substantiate relationship, claimant-applicant had stated that deceased was her brother

and after death of their parents, he was residing with her and she had adopted him. It was submitted, even if there was no material to substantiate adoption, fact that she was sister of deceased was substantiated in deposition of applicant as well as from PWs.2 and 3 and Ex.P8 - Genealogical tree.

¶13Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and award and record.

¶14In this insurer's appeal, three substantial questions of law were framed by this Court.

i) Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the claimant was a dependant of the deceased and that the claimant had adopted the deceased?

ii) Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the accident occurred during the course of employment?

iii) Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner is contrary to the material on record?

¶15Insofar as first substantial question of law, in her pleadings as well as in deposition, applicant clearly stated that she was sister of deceased and after death of their parents, when he was three months old, he was taken care of by applicant and he was residing with her. Besides her deposition,

PWs.2 and 3 from same village, corroborated her claim as sister of deceased as well as about deceased residing with her.

¶16While passing impugned award, Commissioner has taken note of said fact and based on said material, arrived at finding of fact that claimant was dependent and would be entitled for compensation. Since there is some material to substantiate finding, it cannot be said to be perverse or without any basis or contrary to material on record. Besides, finding would be question of fact and therefore, substantial question of law would not arise for consideration.

¶17Though next substantial question of law is that there was no record to substantiate employment and for drawing adverse inference about deceased attempting to change tyre and tube near workshop, deposition of claimant is very clear that deceased was employed as cleaner by owner of Bus and nothing material is elicited either in cross-examination of PW.1 or other witnesses.

¶18On quantum, it is indeed seen that claimant had stated that when deceased was being paid Rs.2,500/- per

month as salary. But it is also stated that same was in addition to providing food and daily bhata.

¶19Under above circumstances, consideration of monthly income of deceased at Rs.4,000/- and assessment of compensation on said basis cannot be stated to be excessive or contrary to law, calling for interference. Hence, even substantial questions of law no.2 and 3 framed would not arise for consideration.

¶20In view of above, since none of substantial questions of law framed, would arise for consideration, appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed as such.

Amount in deposit, if any, before this Court is ordered to be transmitted to jurisdictional Court for payment. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31