- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.449 OF 2017 (WC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., SM TOWERS, 2ND FLOOR, 11TH MAIN, 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE NOW REP. BY ITS MANAGER M/S RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD., NO. 28, 5TH FLOOR, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. D.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOWTHAM BUDDADEVA S/O TAKRANAYAK, NOW AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT MALLAPURA VILLAGE, ALUR POST, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT. 2. M.A. SREENATH S/O LATE ANANTHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT GANESH KRUPA, 7TH CROSS, JCR BADAVANE, CHITRADURGA …RESPONDENTS (R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED26.09.2016 PASSED IN ECA.NO.89/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER MACT- IV, DAVANAGERE, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 35,584/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF 24.08.2012 TILL THE DATE OF REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT The above appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 19231, by the insurer calling in question the judgment and order dated 26.09.2016 passed in ECA No.89/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-IV, Davanagere2. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranks before the Tribunal. 3. The relevant facts in a nutshell leading to the present appeal are that, claiming compensation for the accident that alleged to have occurred on 23.07.2012, the 1Hereinafter referred to as ‘ECA’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 claimant who was a driver of the Tempo Traveler bearing registration No.KA-41/8154 instituted the proceedings under the provisions of the ECA, in ECA No.89/2015 arraying the owner and the insurer of the vehicle as respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively. The said respondent No.1 entered appearance before the Tribunal and contested the claim proceedings by filing the statement of objections. The claimant examined himself as PW1. The representative of the insurer has been examined as RW1. The Regional Transport Officer of Davanagere has been examined as RW2. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 26.09.2016 has partly allowed the claim petition and ordered the insurer to pay a global compensation of Rs.35,584/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. from 24.08.2012 till realization. Being aggrieved, the insurer has filed the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel Sri.D.Vijaykumar appearing for the appellant/insurer, assailing the judgment of the Tribunal contends that although the accident occurred on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 23.07.2012 the complaint has been lodged on 06.09.2012 after a lapse of 45 days of the alleged accident. That the occurrence of the accident itself not having been proved and a claim petition filed under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19883 in MVC No.398/2013 having been dismissed against the insurer, in the present proceedings under the provisions of the ECA, the petition against the insurer would also liable to be rejected. It is further contended that the insurer having examined its officer as RW1 and producing the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 27.10.2014 passed in MVC No.398/2013, which has been marked as Ex.R-8, the Tribunal erred in not noticing the findings recorded therein. It is further contended that the driver was not holding a valid Driving Licence as on date of the accident and that the driver was duly licenced to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (Non Transport) and not transport vehicle, which had also expired on 31.03.2012, nearly 4 months before the 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘MV Act’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 occurrence of the accident, the insurer ought not to have been fastened the liability to pay the compensation awarded. Hence, he seeks for allowing of the appeal and granting of relief as sought for. 5. The respondents are served and unrepresented. 6. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant have been considered and the material on record, including the records of the Tribunal, have been perused. 7. This Court vide order dated 23.01.2020 admitted the above appeal. Hence, the following Substantial Question of Law is framed for consideration: (i) Whether the Tribunal was justified in partly allowing the claim petition and fastening the liability to pay the compensation awarded on the insurer? 8. The essential factual matrix is undisputed inasmuch as, the claimant has instituted the proceedings in ECA No.89/2015 under Section 22 of the ECA wherein - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 the owner of the insured vehicle was arrayed as respondent No.1 and insurer as respondent No.2. The owner has remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The insurer has entered appearance and contested the claim proceedings. The insurer in the statement of objections filed before the Tribunal has taken a specific contention with regard to the fact that the police complaint is highly belated, having been lodged after 45 days of the alleged accident. 9. The representative of the insurer has been examined as RW.1, who has produced various documents, which have been marked as Exs.R.1 to R.15. It is forthcoming from Ex.R.4-a copy of the claim petition in MVC No.398/2013 as well as Ex.R.5-a copy of the statement of objections filed in MVC No.398/2013 that another claim proceedings has been filed with regard to the same accident dated 23.07.2012 involving the insured vehicle, and that in the said claim proceedings, the insurer had taken a similar defence with regard to the complaint - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 regarding the accident in question having been filed belatedly. In the said proceedings, the Tribunal, by its judgment and award dated 27.10.2014, has recorded the following findings at paragraph No.12, which reads as under: “12. Further, the respondent No.3 also taken contention that there was in ordinate delay in filing complaint which shows, the false complaint filed by petitioner and respondent in collusion with each other. So, by careful perusal of the material evidence available on record it is to be seen that as per the admitted fact, petitioner and respondent No.2 the said accident was caused on 23.07.2012. Ex.P1/FIR and Ex.P2/Complaint are reveals the same, but the said complaint was lodged on 6.9.2012 at about 7.30 p.m. Thereafter, the I.O. has investigated the incident and filed charge sheet against the respondent No.1. Therefore, as per the admitted documents it reveals that the complaint was registered after laps of more than 43 days of alleged accident. In the complaint the complainant i.e. respondent No.2 has mentioned the reasons for delay is cannot be acceptable, since if a prudent ordinary man who owner of the vehicle should not kept quiet immediately after the accident by waiting - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 complaint should be given by some body else for a long period. In the complaint the complainant has mentioned that by presumed that inmates of the vehicle who are employees of Canara Bank might have given complaint, he had not given complaint till 6.09.2012. Therefore, the said reason is cannot be accepted. Moreover, by careful perusal of the evidence available on record it is to be seen that even in the petition as well as in his evidence the petitioner has not stated why he was not given complaint immediately after alleged accident. On the other hand during the cross examination he has stated, he himself had given complaint on very next day of accident, but no documents are placed on record. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has taken treatment in SSIMS Hospital and Wound certificate/Ex.P4 is also issued from the said Hospital, but no complaint has been registered within a reasonable period. Though it is mentioned in the Wound certificate about the MLC number, but no satisfactory reasons made out either by petitioner nor by respondent No.2 to believe the bona fide reasons in filing the said complaint. Therefore, as per available material it is clearly shows the doubtful circumstances in respect of filing said complaint and undoubtedly there is a in ordinate delay in filing the said complaint. Therefore, for the said reason it appears the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 doubtful circumstances with regard to alleged incident. However, when the respondent No.1 and 2 have admitted the said incident, then the said responsibility is lies on them only. Therefore, in view of my above discussion I am of opinion that the respondent No.3/Company is not liable for indemnify the respondent No.2 and pay the compensation. Accordingly, I answer this issue in the affirmative.” (emphasis supplied) 10. It is clear from the same in MVC No.398/2013 a finding has been recorded that there are doubtful circumstances in respect of filing of the complaint with regard to the alleged accident and there is an inordinate delay in filing the complaint. Further, while noticing that the owner and driver of the insured vehicle having admitted the accident, the Tribunal exonerated the insurer from paying the compensation. 11. It is relevant to note here that respondent No.1 in MVC No.398/2013 is the claimant in ECA No.89/2015. It is further relevant to note that the driver and the owner - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 of the insured vehicle, who are arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 in MVC No.398/2013, were placed ex parte before the claims Tribunal. In the present case, also i.e., in ECA No.89/2015, the owner of the vehicle, who was arrayed as respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, has also remained ex parte. 12. Despite a specific defence having been taken by the insurer with regard to the delay in lodging of the complaint, the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment in the present appeal. 13. The Tribunal has merely recorded a finding that the observations made in MVC No.398/2013 is not required to be applied while considering the claim proceedings in ECA No.89/2015 since the proceedings were under the provisions of the ECA. However, it is relevant to note that the findings recorded in MVC No.398/2013 being in respect of the genuineness of the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 occurrence of the accident itself, the Tribunal ought to have considered the said aspect of the matter. Further, having regard to the fact that the claims Tribunal, while considering MVC No.398/2013 having recorded a categorical finding that the accident itself is doubtful and further, since the owner of the vehicle has not contested the proceedings has been fastened with the liability by exonerating the insurer, the Tribunal while considering ECA No.89/2015 also ought to have recorded a similar finding. 14. In view of the discussions made above, the question framed for consideration is answered in the Negative. 15. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed; ii) Judgment and award dated 26.09.2016 passed in ECA No.89/2015 by the Principal Senior Civil - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24400 MFA No. 449 of 2017 Judge and MACT-IV Davanagere is hereby modified to the extent of holding that the insurer (appellant herein; respondent No.2 before the Tribunal) is exonerated from payment of the compensation awarded and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is required to be paid by the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.2 in the present appeal; respondent No.1 before the Tribunal). In all other respects, the judgment and award of the Tribunal remains unaltered; iii) Amount deposited by the appellant in the above appeal be refunded to the appellant. iv) Records be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE DR,MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 78