- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35294 MFA No. 115 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2019 (WC) BETWEEN: THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY IFFCO TOKIO GIC. LTD., SHASHI KIRAN BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, SHANKARAMUTTA ROAD, SHIMOGA, NOW REP BY LEGAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD., CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURBANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LALITAMMA W/O. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O. YALAGERI VILLAGE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577 225. 2. SHIVANANDAPPA S/O. CHANDRAPPA KARGER, Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35294 MFA No. 115 of 2019 AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O. MALUKOPPA VILLAGE, BILAGI POST, SHIRALAKOPPA, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIMOGA - 577 214. 3. BASAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O. H.NO. 63, YALAGERE, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIMOGA - 577 245. 4. THE MANAGER LEGAL ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD., 2ND FLOOR, BELLAD & COMPANY, BANNIGIDA STOP, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALI - 578 205. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHRIKANTH B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.16.08.2018 PASSED ON ECA NO.4/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, SHIKARIPURA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,23,920/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM EXPIRY OF 1 MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT TILL DATE OF REALIZATION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35294 MFA No. 115 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for both sides are present. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, challenging the judgment and award dated 16.08.2018 passed in ECA No.4/2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner of Employees Compensation, Shikaripura. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the both sides. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The Brief facts of the case are that, one Sri. Mahesh B. K. S/o Basappa, met with an accident on 28.10.2015 and his mother filed petition before the Tribunal for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The Tribunal - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35294 MFA No. 115 of 2019 considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.8,23,920/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from expiry of one month from the date of accident till date of realization. The Tribunal held that respondent Nos.2 and 4 are jointly liable to pay the compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company preferred this appeal and mainly contended that the deceased/Mahesh was working as a driver in tractor bearing registration No.KA-14/NT024754/2014-2015 and trailer registration No.KA-15/T-9700 and was transporting the maize crops from the land, as per the directions of respondent No.3, who is father of the deceased/Mahesh. Respondent No.1 herein examined herself as PW.1 and marked 9 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.9. The Tribunal erred in taking the wages of the deceased/Mahesh as Rs.8,000/- per month, without any evidence. The main contention of the insurance company is that the deceased was none other than the son of respondent No.3, as such there is no relationship of employer and employee between the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35294 MFA No. 115 of 2019 deceased and respondent No.3. But the Tribunal failed to consider the same and granted the compensation. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the order. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/respondent No.1 has relied upon the decisions reported in 2016 ACJ 519 between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramesh and Another and ILR 2009 KANT MAC 476 (Kant) between New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mahananda and Others, in the said decisions it was held as follows: "Just because the employer or owner of the tractor has employed his son as a coolie or worker it would be erroneous to held that there cannot be an employer and employee relationship. There is no prohibition in law for blood relative to be employer and employee." 6. The Tribunal observed that as per the decision reported in 2014 Lega Eagle (SC) 5 between T. S Shylaja Vs. Oriental Insurance Company, where it is held that there is no prohibition in law to employ relatives - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35294 MFA No. 115 of 2019 as employees. The Tribunal has rightly considered the above citations and held that there was employer and employee relationship between the Mahesh/deceased and respondent No.3, though they are father and son. Accordingly, the Tribunal rightly granted compensation. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company cannot be accepted. 7. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is dismissed. Therefore, the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. ii. The Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the compensation amount and respondent No.4 has also deposited the 50% of the compensation amount. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35294 MFA No. 115 of 2019 iii. If there is any excess compensation deposited by the Insurance Company is entitled for refund. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AMA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12