- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5874 OF 2015 (WC) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAMANI W/O LATE BHASKAR KUKKYAN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 2. SHEETHAL D/O BHASKAR KUKKYAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 3. DHANRAJ D/O LATE BHASKAR KUKKYAN, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT VISHWALEELA COMPOUND, MULITHITHLU, BOLAR, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. MOHAMMAD ALI S/O MOIDEEN, MAJOR R/AT NO.845, MARUTHI NILAYAM, L.N. COLONY, VI CROSS ROAD, KALASIPALYAM, BANGALORE-575018. 2. ICICI LOMBARD MOTOR INSURANCE CO. LTD., OFFICE AT: ZENITH HOUSE, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 KESHAVRA KHADE MARG, MAHALAXMI, MUMBAI-400034 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREMARAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; V/O DATED 03.01.2023, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.02.2015 PASSED ON E.C.A NO.20/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, AT MANGALORE, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED U/S 4, 10 & 22 OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT R/W RULE 8 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION RULES. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellants is present. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 remained absent on 13.01.2026, 12.06.2026 and also today, despite having been granted reasonable opportunities to appear. Accordingly, the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants were heard. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 3. This appeal is filed by the learned counsel for the appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Mangalore (for short 'Commissioner') in ECA No.20/2014, whereby the claim petition seeking compensation was came to be dismissed. 4. The facts in brief are that, the Bhaskar Kukkyan-deceased met with an accident on 31.12.2009 while driving the lorry bearing No.KA-01-C-9864 [offending vehicle] and died during the course of employment. Thereafter, his wife and children filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the Commissioner dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the claimants had failed to establish the relationship of employer and employee and further failed to prove that the deceased died during the course of his employment. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the present - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 appeal is filed mainly contenting that the Commissioner observed that the petitioners/appellants failed to prove the nexus between death and accident during the course of employment. 5. The following substantial questions of law are raised in this appeal for consideration of this Court: "(i) Whether the court below has erred in law in holding that there is no relationship of employer and employee between Bhakar Kukkyan and the 1st respondent when the respondent No 1 has not denied the claim averments and whether such finding is opposed to oral and documentary evidence on record ? (ii) Whether the court below has erred in law in holding that the appellants have failed to prove that death has caused during the course of employment and whether such finding is opposed to documentary evidence such as EX P 1 i.e FIR and EXP 2 i.e post mortem report?" 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the deceased was working as a driver under respondent No.1 and was driving the offending vehicle and as per the oral and documentary evidence of the appellants, the death occurred while Bhaskar Kukkyan was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 driving the offending vehicle. It was further contended that respondent No.1, being the employer of the deceased, did not contest the proceedings. Thus, he admitted the claim averments and lorry was got released by respondent No.1. The suggestion was made to PW.1 in the course of cross-examination that the deceased was receiving wages from the transport company during the course of his employment and that he met with the accident while discharging his duties. This clearly shows that Bhaskar Kukkyan was the employee of respondent No.1 and while driving a heavy vehicle, due to stress and physical strain, he suffered heart attack and died on the spot. Learned counsel further submitted that the post mortem report also discloses that the deceased died due to a cardiac arrest and death occurred during the course of his employment. However, the Commissioner failed to appreciate the facts in a proper perspective. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 7. It is further submitted that the deceased was aged 59 years and was earning a monthly salary of Rs.6,000/- per month along with batta of Rs.50/-. Accordingly, he was earning Rs.7,500/- per month. The relevant factor is Rs.121.05 and thus, he will get a compensation of Rs.9,07,875/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. Hence, he prays to allow the appeal. 8. It is for the appellants/petitioners to prove that there is an employer and employer relationship between the parties. In this case, PW1/wife of the deceased has been examined. She has deposed that the deceased was had been working as a driver under respondent No.1 for the preceding 2 years. She further stated that on 31.12.2009, while the deceased was driving the lorry belonging to respondent No.1, due to the stress caused in the employment he had heart attack and died on duty. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. However, he got the offending vehicle released from the police station. This fact has not been disputed by the insurance company. On - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and the documents at Exs.R1 to R4 were marked and it was contended that since the deceased died due to a heart attack, his death could not be treated as one arising out of an accident and, therefore, the claimants were not entitled to compensation. The Commissioner without appreciating the facts properly held that no documentary evidence is filed by the petitioners to prove the employer and employee relationship. However, the owner of the offending vehicle did not dispute that the deceased was his employee, nor did the Insurance Company adduce any evidence to disprove the said relationship. On the contrary, PW.1 has consistently deposed that her husband had been working as a driver under respondent No.1 for two years prior to the incident. Therefore, this Court finds that it can be presumed that there was an employer and employee relationship between the deceased and the respondent No.1. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 9. As per the citation in the case of POONAM DEVI v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., - (2020) 4 Supreme Court Cases 55, it has held as under: “if personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with provisions.” 10. In the said citation it was further observed as under: “The Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (now christened as “the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923”) is a piece of socially beneficial legislation. The provisions will therefore have to be interpreted in a manner to advance the purpose of the legislation, rather than to stultify it. In case of a direct conflict, when no reconciliation is possible, the statutory provision will prevail only then.” 11. From the above, it can be held that the argument of the learned counsel for respondents before the Commissioner that, the deceased died only due to the heart attack and not met with an accident, it cannot be - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 considered. Hence, the order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside. 12. PW.1 deposed that her husband was earning Rs.7,500/- per month, including batta. However, no documentary evidence has been produced to substantiate the said income. Since the accident occurred in the year 2009, and having regard to the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 2000 vide No.46 of 2000, which came into force on 08.12.2000, prescribing the minimum wages, this Court finds it just and reasonable to assess the monthly wages of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. The relevant provision reads as follows: "(iii) in Explanation II, occurring after clause (b) and before clause (c), for the words "two thousand rupees" occurring at both the places, the words "four thousand rupees" shall respectively be substituted." As this is a case of death, 50% of the monthly wages is required to be taken for the purpose of computing compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 Accordingly, the monthly wages are taken at Rs.2,000/-. The deceased was aged 59 years, and the relevant factor applicable is 121.05. Thus, the compensation payable works out to Rs.2,42,100/- (Rs.2,000 × 121.05), together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In addition, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. 13. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed-in-part. ii. The judgment and award dated 25.02.2015 passed in ECA No.20/2014 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Mangalore is set aside; iii. Insurance company-respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs.2,47,100/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the accident till today within one month from the date of this order. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32522 MFA No. 5874 of 2015 iv. On such deposit, petitioner No.1/wife of the deceased is permitted to withdraw the entire amount as the children are major. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE VBS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35