- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4612 OF 2020 (ECA) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., D.A B2, NO.44, SRI CHAMUNDESHWARI COMPLEX, NEXT TO KAMAKYA THEATRE, OPP. 13TH BMTC BUS DEPOT, BENGALURU-560 085 NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TP HUB, REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO.44/46, RESIDENCY ROAD CROSS, BENGALURU-560 025 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PAVITHRA B.B W/O LATE RAVI S, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 2. PRANAV S.R S/O LATE RAVI S, AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 3. DAKSHATH S.R S/O LATE RAVI S, AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, 4. LAKSHMAMMA W/O SWAMYGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 5. SWAMYGOWDA S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENT ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT AS MINOR GUARDIAN ALL ARE RESIDENT OF SATTIGARA HALLY, KATTAYA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK-573 125 6. SRI CHETHAN BORA S/O BAVARLAL BORA, C/O M.S MAHAVEERA BULK CARRIER, NO.207, ELIGANS ROYAL COMPLEX, 2ND 'A' CROSS, SINDI COLONY, J.C ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5, SRI. K VENKATEGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 R2 & R3 ARE MINORS REP BY R1) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED. 28.08.2020, PASSED IN ECA NO.19/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, HASSAN, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.5,80,400/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12 PERCENT P.A., FROM ONE MONTH AFTER THE DATE OF ACCIDENT i.e., 16.11.2016 TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award dated 28.08.2020 passed in E.C.A.No.19/2017 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Hassan (for short, 'Commissioner'), whereby the Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of ₹5,80,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the claimant. The Commissioner further held respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for payment of the said compensation. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 2. The factual matrix of the case is that one S. Ravi (since deceased) was employed as a Supervisor in a plant operated by respondent No.1. On 16.10.2016, while proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-JS-0977, belonging to respondent No.6, from one plant to another in the course of his employment, he met with an accident at about 12:45 a.m. As a result of the said accident, he sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. On the very same day, an FIR was registered by the jurisdictional police, and after investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the rider of the said motorcycle. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the deceased, filed a claim petition before the Commissioner seeking compensation under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company by filing its statement of objections. The employer also appeared and participated in the proceedings before the Commissioner. 3. The Commissioner on assessment of oral and documentary evidence, partly allowed the claim petition as stated supra. Feeling aggrieved by the same the insurance company has preferred the present appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company so also the learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 5 and respondent No.6. 5. Apart from urging other contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the accident admittedly occurred at 12:45 a.m. on 16.10.2016. It is also the admitted case of respondent No.1 that, although the deceased was employed in its establishment, his working hours were from 9:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Therefore, it was contended that the deceased cannot be said to have been discharging his duties at the relevant point of time, and consequently, the accident cannot be held to have arisen out of and in the course of his employment. 6. The learned counsel further submitted that, in the cross-examination of RW.1 (the employer), he specifically admitted that if any accident were to occur to an employee after completion of working hours, the same could not be treated as an accident arising in the course of employment. It was argued that, despite such clear evidence on record, the Commissioner failed to properly appreciate and consider these - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 material aspects of the matter while passing the impugned award. 7. On these grounds, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned Judgment and Award be set aside. Accordingly he prays to allow the appeal 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants, while supporting the impugned Judgment and Award, contended that Ex.P8, namely the statement given by respondent No. 1/employer before the police, clearly discloses that the deceased employee was working as a Supervisor and was travelling from the plant situated at Pramod Layout to another plant at Kanakapura Road on the date of the accident. It was submitted that the accident occurred during the course of such travel undertaken in connection with his employment. Therefore, the accident squarely falls within the ambit of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. 9. The learned counsel further contended that the aforesaid fact has been unequivocally admitted by respondent No.1/employer in his evidence. In view of the said admission and the material available on record, the Commissioner was - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant–Insurance Company and awarding compensation in favour of the claimants. 10. The learned counsel further submitted that the aforesaid fact stands established from the evidence of RW.1, who, both in his examination-in-chief and cross-examination, categorically admitted that the vehicle involved in the accident belonged to the firm. In view of the said admission and the material available on record, it was contended that the Commissioner was fully justified in fastening the liability on the appellant. Accordingly, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal and for confirmation of the impugned Judgment and Award. 11. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/employer also supported the impugned Judgment and Award and contended that the accident occurred while the deceased employee was travelling from one unit of the establishment to another in connection with his official duties. Therefore, the accident had arisen out of and in the course of his employment, and the Commissioner was justified in awarding compensation to the claimants. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 12. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the evidence and documents available on record. 13. As could be gathered from the records, the accident in question occurred on 16.10.2016. The issuance and validity of the insurance policy covering the motorcycle by the appellant–Insurance Company are not in dispute. It is also undisputed that the accident occurred at 12:45 a.m. on the said date. Following the accident, an FIR came to be registered by the jurisdictional police, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the deceased. A perusal of the FIR, which was registered on the very same day, discloses that the vehicle involved in the accident was a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-05-JS-0977. 14. In the evidence of RW.1, the employer has categorically admitted that the motorcycle involved in the accident belonged to the company. Thus, it is evident that, at the time of the accident, the deceased was travelling on a motorcycle owned by the employer. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 15. No doubt, the accident occurred beyond the regular working hours of the deceased. However, Ex.P8, namely the letter addressed by respondent No.1/employer to the police during the course of investigation, assumes significance. In the said letter, the employer has specifically stated that, on the date of the accident, the deceased was travelling from the plant situated at Pramod Layout, Mysore Road, to another plant located on Kanakapura Road. It is also stated therein that the employer was engaged in the business of goods transportation and that the deceased was travelling in connection with the affairs of the establishment. Though Ex.P8 was marked in evidence, no suggestion was put to RW.1 during his cross- examination disputing or falsifying the contents thereof. 16. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Daivshala and others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd and another in Civil Appeal No.6986/2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.16573/2012 decided on 28.07.2025 held in paragraph No.55 as under: "55. Applying the above principle, we interpret the phrase ''accident arising out of and in the course of his employment" occurring in - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 Section 3 of the EC Act to include accident occurring to an employee while commuting from his residence to the place of employment for duty or from the place of employment to his residence after performing duty, provided the nexus between the circumstances, time and place in which the accident occurred and the employment is established." 17. By collating the facts and the law laid down in the above-referred decision with the facts of the present case, it is evident that, as stated by the employer himself, the deceased employee was proceeding from one plant to another plant on a motorcycle belonging to the employer at the time of the accident. 18. In such circumstances, applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly held that the accident occurred in the course of employment. Consequently, the appellant–Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the employer and satisfy the compensation awarded. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26959 MFA No. 4612 of 2020 19. In view of the above, I find no good ground to interfere with the Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34