- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023042020 NC: 2026:KHC:36621 MFA No. 1109 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1109 OF 2020(ECA) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, BALLAL CRICLE, CHAMARAJANAGARAM, MYSORE-570005 THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 5TH AND 6TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, SRI RAVI J …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KRISHNA KISHORE S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. T R VINODA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O T.S GANESHACHARI, 2. SRI T S GANESHACHARI Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023042020 NC: 2026:KHC:36621 MFA No. 1109 of 2020 AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O LATE SOMACHARI, BOTH ARE RESIDDENTS OF THORENOOR VILLAGE AND POST, KUSHALANAGAR HOBLI, SOMWATPET TALUK-571232 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SLN COFFEE PVT LTD KUDLURU KUSHALNAGAR INDUSTRIES AREA, SOMWARPET TALUK, COORG DISTRICT-571234 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SUMA KEDILAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI. VENKATESH R BHAGATH, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.06.2019 PASSED IN ECA.NO. 04/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, MADIKERI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,59,429/- AND INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT P.A. FROM ONE MONTH AFTER THE DATE OF INCIDENT TILL REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023042020 NC: 2026:KHC:36621 MFA No. 1109 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The insurance company has preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed in E.C.A.No.04/2017 dated 13.06.2019 by the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Madikeri (for brevity, 'the Commissioner'), whereby the commissioner partly allowed the claim petition and granted compensation of Rs.7,59,429/- with 12% interest from one month after the date of accident till realization to the claimants i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2 in this appeal. 2. The occurrence of the accident and the existence of the relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No.3 are not in dispute. The sole contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Commissioner, relying upon Ex.R3 i.e. the certified copy of the insurance policy produced through RW.1, fastened the liability on the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023042020 NC: 2026:KHC:36621 MFA No. 1109 of 2020 appellant–Insurance Company to pay not only the compensation amount but also interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of one month from the date of the accident till the date of realization. 3. It is further submitted that the appellant has filed I.A. No.1/2025 dated 18.11.2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission to produce additional evidence. Along with the application, the appellant has produced a true copy of the insurance policy containing the complete policy terms and conditions, including the policy wordings. According to the appellant, the policy expressly excludes the liability of the insurer to pay interest on the award and/or any penalty imposed upon the insured under any law. It is contended that the document produced before the Commissioner by the insured was only the policy schedule, which did not contain the policy wordings or the exclusion clauses. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023042020 NC: 2026:KHC:36621 MFA No. 1109 of 2020 4. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid exclusion clause, the learned counsel submits that the appellant cannot be held liable to satisfy the component of interest awarded by the Commissioner. On the said premise, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed by exonerating the appellant from liability to pay interest or in the alternative to remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. 5. In order to buttress his argument, he placed the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. J. Narayan vs. Union of India and others reported in 2004 ACJ 452. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insured submitted that, upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Ex.R3–the insurance policy, the Commissioner has rightly awarded compensation and directed the appellant–Insurance Company to pay the same. It is further contended that the plea now sought to be urged by the appellant i.e. that the policy does not cover the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023042020 NC: 2026:KHC:36621 MFA No. 1109 of 2020 liability to pay interest, has been raised for the first time in the instant appeal and was never urged before the Commissioner. Hence, it is submitted that no interference is called for with the impugned judgment and award. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants by supporting the impugned judgment and award, prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. I have given anxious consideration on the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also perused the entire materials placed on record including I.A.No.1/2025 and the documents placed along with the application. 9. On a careful perusal of Ex.R3, it is evident that the document produced before the Commissioner is only the schedule of the insurance policy. However, the appellant has, along with I.A. No.1/2025, produced a true copy of the insurance policy containing the complete policy - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023042020 NC: 2026:KHC:36621 MFA No. 1109 of 2020 terms and conditions, including the policy wordings. A perusal of page No.8 of the said policy discloses the definitions and exclusions, wherein clause (d) of the exclusion specifically stipulates that the policy shall not cover the liability of the insured in respect of "interest and/or penalty imposed on the insured under any law or otherwise." Admittedly, the policy wordings containing the aforesaid exclusion clause were not produced before the Commissioner, and Ex.R3 was confined only to the policy schedule. 10. Nevertheless, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in P.J. Narayan stated supra, has held that where the terms of the insurance policy specifically exclude the liability of the insurer to pay interest, the insurer cannot be fastened with such liability. In the instant case, since the exclusion clause contained in the policy wordings was not placed before or considered by the Commissioner, the effect of the said clause requires fresh examination in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023042020 NC: 2026:KHC:36621 MFA No. 1109 of 2020 11. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned judgment and award, insofar as it relates to the liability of the appellant–Insurance Company to pay interest, warrants reconsideration by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the matter deserves to be remitted to the Commissioner for fresh consideration in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R i. The appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment and decree dated 13.06.2019 passed in E.C.A.No.04/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation at Madikeri is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. iii. The parties are at liberty to lead any further evidence and to produce any documents, if any. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010023042020 NC: 2026:KHC:36621 MFA No. 1109 of 2020 iv. The Commissioner is at liberty to frame any additional issues, if requires to dispose of the case. v. The parties shall appear before the Commissioner on 17.08.2026 without any further notice. vi. Since the accident is of the year 2016, the Commissioner is requested to dispose of the claim petition at the earliest vii. Registry is directed to send back the TCR along with certified copy of the judgment to the concerned Commissioner forth with. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33