- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6531 OF 2019 (ECA) BETWEEN: VINAYACHANDRA P.S, S/O. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO. K.R. EXTENSION, BEHIND GURUBHAVAN, MADHUGIRI TOWN-572 132. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SATHISHA T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NAYAZ BAIG, S/O. SATTAR BAIG, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT SINGARAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, PURAVARA HOBLI, MADUGIRI TALUK-572 132. 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INS. CO. LTD., CHENNAI, SERVICE ADDRESS: BAJAJ ALLIANZ GEN. INS. CO. LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, GOLDEN HEIGHTS, 59TH CROSS, 4TH "M" BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.S LINGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; R-1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.06.2019 PASSED IN ECA.NO.1/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MACT, MADHUGIRI, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for respondent No.2. 2. The challenge in this appeal by the petitioner/appellant is to the judgment and award dated 13.06.2019 passed in ECA No.1/2016 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Madhugiri (hereinafter referred to as 'Commissioner' under EC Act) whereby, the said petition came to be dismissed). 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, when the petitioner being the driver working under respondent No. 1 on Tavera car bearing No. KA -34- ML- 4266 was returning from Sabarimala along with the inmates at about 06-30 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 p.m. on 17.12.2015 near Maddur-Moolehole Forest on Gundlupet-Calicut road, the said Tavera vehicle dashed against a lorry, resulting in the accident, wherein four of the inmates of the Car died. Petitioner had sustained the injuries to his forehead, right eyebrow, inner aspect of the upper and lower lip, left knee joint and lost his upper incisor teeth, loosening of the right upper incisor teeth, fracture of right tibial plateau, fracture of the clavicle and right acetabulum. He was shifted to Taluka General Hospital, Gundlupet and thereafter, to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru. He was inpatient from 17.12.2015 to 01.01.2016. The petitioner claims that he was earning ₹3,000/- per month and daily bata of ₹400/-. Therefore, he filed petition claiming compensation from the respondents. 4. On issuance of notice, respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 appeared before the Commissioner. Respondent No.1 did not file any statement of objection. But respondent No.2- Insurance Company filed its - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 objections denying the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and termed the compensation claimed as highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable in law. Inter alia, it also contended that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and the vehicle was being used for hire and reward and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. 5. On the basis of the said contentions, the Commissioner framed appropriate issues and the petitioner was examined as PW1 and Exhibits P1 to P12 were marked. The doctor, who assessed the disability was examined as PW2. Respondent No.1 was examined as RW1 and the officer of the respondent No.2- Insurance Company was examined as RW2 and Exhibits R1 and R2 were marked in evidence. 6. After hearing the arguments, the learned Commissioner dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the relationship of the employee and employer was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 not proved. The reason for dismissal is stated in Para 20 of the impugned judgment which reads as below: "20. If at all the petitioner was working as a driver under respondent No.1, initially he failed to produce his driving licence and even he failed to produce any documents which prove that he is working under respondent No.1 as an employee. All the bills produced by the petitioner at Ex.P.8 bears the signature of B.E.O, Madhugiri. The reason behind this is his mother Smt. Rajyam M.A is working as Head Mistress at Government Higher Primary School, Thigalarahalli, Madhugiri taluk as per Ex.P.9. Hence, it is clear that, the petitioner is the son of Head Mistress Smt. Rajyam and his father's name is Sri. Suryanarayana. It is hard to believe that being the son of Head Mistress, petitioner was working as a driver under respondent No.1 from the past eight months before the date of accident. Even the petitioner failed to examine his parents to depose regarding his avocation under respondent No.1". 7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant/ petitioner is before this Court in appeal. 8. After hearing the arguments by the learned counsel for the appellant, the substantial question of law - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 (though the appeal was admitted substantial question of law has not been framed) is that, Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that the relationship of the employee and employer is not proved, despite there being an admission by RW1? 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that when RW1 has admitted in cross- examination that the deceased was the employee of the owner of the vehicle, it was not being controverted either by any other cogent evidence, the Commissioner could not have discarded the same on a flimsy ground that the son of a Head Mistress of a School could not have become a driver. It is contended that there is no bar for the petitioner to work as a driver despite he being a son of a Head Mistress of the School. Therefore, the conclusion of the learned Commissioner is based on conjunctures and therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 10. He further submits that the vehicle was being used for the personal use and it was not for hire or reward and as such, the Commissioner should have concluded that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation as provided under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act. It is submitted that PW2 Doctor says that there is a disability of 23% to the whole body and this should have been accepted by the learned Commissioner. 11. The perusal of the testimony of RW1, who is none else than the owner of the vehicle, show that the petitioner was working as a driver and he was paid a sum of ₹3,000/- per month and Rs.400/- per day as bata. This would show that the testimony of PW1, having not been denied by further cross-examination on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company or anybody else, could not have been discarded by the Commissioner. The conclusion that the petitioner could not have been a driver because he was the son of a Head Mistress is not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 sustainable in law since it cannot be of any relevance. Obviously, there is no basis for such conclusion and it can only be said that it is of pure imagination. PW.1 in the cross-examination, nowhere admits that he was not working as a driver. In that view of the matter, the observations of the Commissioner that the relationship of the employee and employer has not been proved is not sustainable in law. 12. It is pertinent to note that the perusal of Ex.R2, which is the statement of the father of the victim who had died in the said accident is relied by the Insurance Company. In the said statement, H Sadanand Das states that his sons M.S. Jayanth and M.S. Bharath and their friends had taken the said Tavera car bearing No. KA-34- M- 4266 on hire from a travel agency. This statement of the father of a victim relied by the Insurance Company, shows that the vehicle was being used for hire. There is no rebuttal evidence by the petitioner in this regard. Though there is a denial in the cross-examination of PW1 in this - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 respect, the effect of Ex.R2 is not nullified by such testimony of PW1. Under these circumstances, it is evident that the terms and conditions of the policy were blatantly violated by the petitioner and the RW1. It is surprising to note that RW1 also do not refer to Ex.R2, but he only says that his son was also one of the inmates of the car and he and his friends had been to Sabarimala. It is little difficult to believe that respondent No.1- Nayaz Beg had sent his son to a pilgrimage to Sabarimala. Under these circumstances, Ex.R2 relied by the Insurance Company holds good. In the result, the liability of respondent No.2 has to be absolved. The resultant effect would be that the respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle would be liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. As a consequence, the compensation has to be calculated and awarded to the appellant. 13. The testimony of PW2, the authorized Medical Practitioner would show that petitioner had suffered fracture of right tibial plateau, fracture of the right - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 acetabulum, and slotting shoulders with facial injuries. Apart from that there were some injuries to the teeth and face. Ultimately, he comes to the conclusion that there is a disability of 23%. 14. From the perusal of his testimony and the other medical records, it would show that the injuries to the face and teeth would not come in the way of the petitioner's profession as a driver. Therefore, the functional disability that could be attributed on account of the injuries suffered by the petitioner would be about 10%. The records show that the petitioner was aged 25 years and therefore, the appropriate factor would be '216.91'. As per the notification of the Government of India, issued under Section 4(1B) the monthly wages of the petitioner is considered at ₹8,000/-. Therefore, the compensation is calculated at ₹8,000x216.91x10%x60% = ₹1,04,117 /-. In addition to it, the petitioner is also entitled for the medical expenses of ₹82,500/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for a total compensation of ₹1,86,617/-. Hence, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27024 MFA No. 6531 of 2019 the substantial question of law raised is answered accordingly. 15. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is set aside. (iii) The petitioner is entitled for a sum of ₹1,86,617/- along with interest at 12% P.A., from the 30th day of the accident till its payment to the petitioner from respondent No.1. (iv) The petition as against respondent No.2- Insurance Company stands dismissed. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85