- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471832016 NC: 2026:KHC:39846 MFA No. 8101 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8101 OF 2016 (WC) BETWEEN: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, A.A.CIRCLE, RUB BUILDING, SHIMOGA - 577 201. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SMT. M. SUDHAMANI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANUP SEETHA RAMARAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GIRISH, S/O BASAVARAJ, SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS LR'S SMT. P.T.ASHA, W/O LATE GIRISH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 2. MASTER M.G.YASHVANTH KUMAR, S/O LATE GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS, SINCE MINOR, REPRESENTED BY HIS Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471832016 NC: 2026:KHC:39846 MFA No. 8101 of 2016 NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER THE FIRST RESPONDENT HEREIN 3. SMT. DANAMMA, W/O BASAVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O ADDAGADDE, MANDAGADDE POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432. 4. SRI. MANJUNATHA SHETTY, S/O JAGANNATHA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O ADDAMANE, MANDAGGADEE POST, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 432. (OWNER OF JEEP NO.KA-14/M-6054). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. U. PANDURANGA NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; R4 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED PASSED IN ECA.NO.03/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS AT THIRTHAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 8,42,744/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT TILL ITS REALISATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471832016 NC: 2026:KHC:39846 MFA No. 8101 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for the appellant is present. Learned counsel for respondents is absent. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant on 20.07.2026 and posted for arguments of learned counsel for respondents on 23.07.2026. Even on that day, he has not turned up and again posted for respondents' arguments to today i.e., on 29.07.2026 but he has not turned up. Therefore, it is deemed that there are no arguments on behalf of learned counsel for the respondents. 3. This appeal is filed by United India Insurance Company Ltd., against the judgment and award dated 07.09.2016 passed in E.C.A. No.03/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class., at Thirthahalli, seeking to examine and set aside the same. 4. Girish s/o Basavaraj met with an accident on 10.12.2005 and his wife, son and mother filed claim petition - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471832016 NC: 2026:KHC:39846 MFA No. 8101 of 2016 under Employees' Compensation Act claiming compensation of ₹8,00,000/-. Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of ₹8,42,744/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from expiry of one month from the date of accident till realization. Aggrieved by the said order, Insurance Company preferred this appeal. 5. One Girish aged 26 years met with an accident on 10.12.2005 while driving the jeep bearing number KA-14/M- 6054 belonging to the respondent No.4. He suffered fracture injuries, treated in the hospital for four days and filed an application on 27.03.2008 under Sections 3, 4, 10 and 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act for grant of compensation. Before the cross-examination, he died on 27.04.2009 but the claim petition is filed after lapse of two years without explaining the delay. After the death of the applicant, legal representatives came on record after three years. The claimants/LRs failed to establish the death of Girish on 27.04.2009 and the injuries sustained in the accident dated 10.12.2005. But the Tribunal allowed the claim petition as the delay in filing the claim petition is more than three years, it was - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471832016 NC: 2026:KHC:39846 MFA No. 8101 of 2016 not considered. The Tribunal granted compensation as per the provisions of Motor Vehicles Claim, though it is filed under Employees Compensation Act and granted excessive compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly contended that claim petition was filed beyond period of limitation provided under the Provisions of Workman Compensation Act without explaining the delay and even LR application was filed three years after the death of the workman and evidence of the RW.1 was recorded on 24.06.2016 but the interest was granted from 10.01.2006. The Substantial Question of Law reads as under: 1) Whether the learned Civil Judge acted contrary to law in entertaining the claim petition filed after 3 years by the injured and the one pursued by his LR's after 3 years of his death without there being any justifiable cause? ii) Whether the Court below acted contrary to law in allowing the claim petition without there being any proof of nexus between the death of the workman dated 27-04-2009 and the Employment injury suffered by him on 10-12-2005? iii) Whether the Court below acted perversely in ignoring the pleadings and evidence of the applicant about his daily wages being Rs.100/- when considering the wages at Rs.5,000/- per month while allowing the claim application? - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471832016 NC: 2026:KHC:39846 MFA No. 8101 of 2016 iv) Whether the Court below acted contrary to law in awarding compensation under the conventional heads which is not contemplated under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as it stood at the time of cause of action? v) Whether the Court below erred in awarding interest at 12% p.a from 10-01-2006 till deposit ignoring that there was delay of 3 years in making the application and another 3 years in making LR application and 4 years delay in leading evidence of the LR's? vi) Whether the Court below was justified in making the appellant/insurer to pay the interest at 12% p.a without looking into statutory restrictions and ignoring the fact that the compensation amount had not fallen due as contemplated in law? 7. Perusal of the record shows that deceased Girish s/o Basavaraj met with an accident on 10.12.2005 but died on 27.04.2009 and then the legal representatives were brought on record after three years. It is for them to prove that he died due to the injuries sustained in the accident but they have not made any efforts to prove the same. Therefore, there was no nexus between injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident and death. As the application is filed under Workmen's Compensation Act, it is to be filed within two years from the date of the accident but it is filed beyond the limitation period and even legal representatives were brought on record after three years of the death. But the Tribunal without considering - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010471832016 NC: 2026:KHC:39846 MFA No. 8101 of 2016 the aspect of limitation granted the compensation based on the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act though it is specifically filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore, the award of the Tribunal is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 8. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Appeal filed by Insurance Company is allowed. (ii) The judgment and award dated 07.09.2016 passed in E.C.A.No.03/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate First Class., at Thirthahalli, is set aside. (iii) Amount in deposit is to be transferred to MACT., and to be refunded to the Insurance Company. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64