- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35591 MFA No. 1304 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1304 OF 2022 (ECA) BETWEEN: THAJUDDIN SON OF A. B. IBRAHIM NOW AGED 33 YEARS R/O. PALLATHADKA HOUSE AJJAVARA VILLAGE SULLIA TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, PIN- 574 239 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIKESH B.G, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARUNAKARA P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MAHIN KUNHI S.I FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN NOW AGED 46 YEARS R/O. DOOR NO.14-400 MADHUR ,DELAMPADY HOUSE SHIRIBAGILU KOODLU POST KASARAGOD, KERALA STATE PIN - 671 127 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD P.M. RAO ROAD, BHARATHI BUILDING MANGALURU Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35591 MFA No. 1304 of 2022 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT PIN-575 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2020 PASSED IN E.C.A NO. 01/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. 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 directed against the judgment passed in ECA No.01/2017 dated 15.06.2020 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Sullia, D.K., (for short 'the Trial Court'), whereby the Trial Court dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the appellant was working as a driver of Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.KL-14/3-3997 under respondent No.1 - owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said car. On 18.01.2014, the appellant during the course of his employment as a driver, was proceeding towards Ajjivara of Sullia Taluk, D.K. from a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35591 MFA No. 1304 of 2022 place called Kanakamajalu along with two inmates by name Samshuddin and Abdul Basheer K.M. When he reached a place called Mavinakatte of Jalsoor Village at about 01:15 a.m. on 19.01.2014, he lost control over the car and fell into a ditch. Due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. Later, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Sulia and from there to Mahaveera Hospital at Puttur. Subsequently, a claim petition was filed by the appellant claiming compensation for the injuries he sustained in the accident. 3. To prove his case before the Trial Court, the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and marked 43 documents as Exs.P1 to P43. The Insurance Company has marked 2 documents as Exs.R1 and R2. 4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the claim petition. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 5. Heard learned counsel Sri Vikesh B.G. for Sri Karunakara P. for the appellant and learned counsel - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35591 MFA No. 1304 of 2022 Sri C. Shankara Reddy for respondent No.2. Though notice was served to respondent No.1, he remained absent. 6. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellant primarily would contend that respondent No.1 - owner of the car has categorically admitted in his statement and evidence that the appellant was the employee under him and he was driving the car on the date of accident from Sulia to Kerala. Despite the said evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the appellant has failed to prove the relationship of employee and employer between himself and respondent No.1. In such circumstances, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - insurer would contend that the Trial Court, after meticulously examining the evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was collusion between the appellant and respondent No.1 and in order to make unlawful gain, a frivolous petition has been filed by the appellant at the instance of respondent No.1 and that the accident had not occurred during the course of employment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35591 MFA No. 1304 of 2022 Since respondent No.1 being the resident of Kerala State, there is no reason whatsoever to the appellant to work under him, since the appellant is the resident of Sulia Taluk. In such circumstances, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. 9. As could be gathered from records though the accident is not in dispute since the appellant has sustained injuries in the accident and thereafter, he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Sulia and thereafter, to Mahaveer Hospital, Puttur, however, the primary aspect is whether the appellant was the employee under respondent No.1 as on the date of accident. The evidence of PW.1 and the available documents on record would reveal that the appellant is the resident of Sulia Taluk and respondent No.1 is the resident of Kerala State and that the appellant - PW.1 has not specifically stated in his evidence the reason of driving the vehicle towards Kerala on the date of accident and except oral say, he has absolutely not produced any document to substantiate the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35591 MFA No. 1304 of 2022 relationship of employee and employer between himself and respondent No.1. Further, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the insurer, at the time of accident, the insurance stood in the name of respondent No.1 - Mahin Kunhi and although, the said car was purchased by one Haris, the RC has not been changed in his name. The said Haris has not been arrayed as party to the proceedings. Even the inmates of the car have not been examined before the Trial Court. In such circumstances, the Trial Court has rightly held that the appellant colluding with respondent No.1 had filed frivolous claim petition. On overall examination of entire material on record, I find no good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV/PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59