- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26823 MFA No. 1787 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1787 OF 2017 (WC) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY BRANCH OFFICE , DUMMY COMPLEX, LAKSHMI BAZAR, CHITRADURGA-577501. THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE MMK COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, P.T.EXTENSION, DAVANAGERE-577002. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER SRI SURENDER P GAONKAR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR S MADHU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S/O LATE K M SHIVARAM, R/AT ASSAR MOHALLA, CHITRADURGA 577501 2. SRI T C MALLIKARJUNA MAJOR, S/O LALTE T B CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,. R/O BHIMA SAMUDRA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT 577501 (OWNER OF MARUTI OMNI NO.KA.05/P-9966) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTY HEGDE NAGRAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 IS SERVED) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26823 MFA No. 1787 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.08.2016, PASSED IN ECA.NO.228/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE C/C II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 2,62,300/- WITH INTEREST AT 9% P.A. FROM 30TH DAYS OF ACCIDENT TILL REALIZATION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER SUBMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal is filed by the insurer under Section 30(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 19231 (formerly the Workmen’s Compensation Act) calling in question the judgment and order dated 9.8.2016 passed in ECA No.228/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Compensation at Chitradurga2. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as per their rank before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident, which occurred on 3.5.2001, the claimant filed a claim petition under Section 22 of 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1923’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26823 MFA No. 1787 of 2017 the Act of 1923 in CR No.164/2001 contending, inter alia, that he was working as a driver under the owner of Maruthi Omni bearing No.KA-05-P-9966, on the said date of accident when he was driving the said car, another Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-20- 6543 came from the opposite direction and hit the car, which the claimant was driving causing the accident in question, wherein he sustained grievous injuries. The owner and insurer of the Maruthi Omni, who were arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2, contested the claim proceedings. 4. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 20.11.2006 partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of `5,08,296/- together with interest at 12% p.a. Being aggrieved the insurer preferred MFA No.1880/2007 before this Court. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 1.3.2011 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. 5. Consequent to the remand, the claim petition was renumbered as ECA No.228/2014. The claimant adduced further evidence as PW.1 and marked various documents. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 9.8.2016 partly - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26823 MFA No. 1787 of 2017 allowed the claim petition and awarded a total compensation of `2,62,300/- together with interest at 9% p.a. Being aggrieved, the insurer has preferred the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel Sri Anup Seetharama Rao appearing for learned counsel Sri B.C.Seetharama Rao, for the appellant/insurer vehemently contends that PW.1 in the cross- examination, pursuant to his further examination-in-chief, has admitted that he was traveling in the insured vehicle along with his family members and friends and that he was a businessman carrying on independent business. Hence, it is contended that, the case put forth by the claimant in the claim petition that he was a driver under respondent No.1/employer is a false claim. Hence, the learned counsel seeks for allowing of the appeal and granting the reliefs sought for. 7. Learned counsel Sri Spoorthy Hegde appearing for the respondent No.2, who is the owner of the vehicle seeks to justify the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal. 8. The claimant who is arrayed as respondent No.1 in the present appeal has been served and is unrepresented. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26823 MFA No. 1787 of 2017 9. The submissions of both the learned counsels have been considered and the material on record including the records of the Tribunal have been perused. 10. This Court vide order dated 5.2.2020 has admitted the above appeal. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration in the above appeal is, whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the claim petition and awarding the compensation having regard to the admissions made by PW.1 in the cross-examination dated 23.6.2015? 11. It is forthcoming that consequent to the remand, the claimant has further examined himself as PW.1 by filing an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief on 23.6.2015. In the cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that he has taken the insured vehicle on hire and that on the date of the accident, PW.1 along with his wife, his two younger brothers and their neighbours (totally 6 persons) were traveling to Udupi. It is further admitted that the mother of the claimant namely, Shanthamma owned omni bus bearing No.KA-16-A-3334 and the said bus used to be let out on hire. PW.1 has further admitted that his younger brother owned Tata Sumo bearing No.KA-16(D)-3334. He has further admitted that the claimant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26823 MFA No. 1787 of 2017 along with his parents and brothers were staying together as a joint family and that the said joint family was running a Bar and Restaurant, which licence was in the name of the claimant. PW.1 has further admitted that his father had shifted to Chitradurga from their native place i.e., Kundapura and had set up various businesses. 12. It is clear from the testimony of PW.1 that the case put forth by the claimant in the claim petition is a false one. In view of the categorical material on record, the Tribunal erred in allowing the claim petition and awarding the compensation. The Tribunal, while considering the contentions put forth by the parties has not noticed the said aspect of the matter and has misdirected itself in recording a finding that the objections of respondent No.2/insurer are not required to be upheld. 13. In view of the discussion above, substantial question of law framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 14. Hence, the following: ORDER i. The above appeal is allowed; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26823 MFA No. 1787 of 2017 ii. The judgment and order dated 9.8.2016 passed in ECA No.228/2014 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Compensation at Chitradurga, is set aside; iii. The claim petition in ECA No.228/2014 (earlier numbered as CR No.164/2001) on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Compensation at Chitradurga, is dismissed; iv. The amount deposited by the appellant before this Court be refunded to the appellant. No costs. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE ND List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22