- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343462020 NC: 2026:KHC:39884 MFA No. 4883 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4883 OF 2020 (ECA) BETWEEN: RAJEGOWDA S/O PAPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT RANGANATHA NAGARA SRIRANGAPATNA TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT-571438 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SREENIVASAN M.Y, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEVEGOWDA S/O GENDEGOWDA, MAJOR R/AT KAMANAHALLI VILLAGE BALLEKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI K.R PETE TALUK, MANDYA DIST-571 440 2. THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.5/S, 2ND FLOOR, MONARCH CHAMBER INFANTRY ROAD, SHIVAJI NAGARA BANGALORE-570 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343462020 NC: 2026:KHC:39884 MFA No. 4883 of 2020 THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.29.01.2020 PASSED IN ECA NO.05/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT, SRIRANGAPATNA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant-employee has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award passed in ECA No.5/2017 dated 29.01.2020 by the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srirangapatana (for short 'the Commissioner), whereby the Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 23 of the Employees Compensation Act and awarded compensation of Rs.2,63,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The brief facts of case are, the claimant was working under respondent No.1 as a driver in Tractor-Trailer bearing registration No.KA-54-T-1844 and KA-54-T-1845 owned by respondent No.1. On 19.05.2017, as per the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343462020 NC: 2026:KHC:39884 MFA No. 4883 of 2020 instruction of respondent No.1, the claimant was proceeding in the Tractor-Trailer on hire basis for the purpose of loading and unloading of manure to one Javaregowda's land. At about 05:30 p.m., when the claimant reached near the land of said Javaregowda, he lost control over the vehicle and same was turtled. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries on all over the body. Thereafter, he was shifted to Nagarajegowda Memorial Hospital at Mysore for treatment. Later, he filed claim petition before the Commissioner under Section 23 of Employees' Compensation Act (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the injuries he sustained. 3. The Commissioner, upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation as stated supra. However, the Commissioner exonerated respondent No.2-Insurance Company and fastened the liability against respondent No.1- owner/employer for the reason that the Tractor-Trailer was used for the commercial purpose. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the claimant. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343462020 NC: 2026:KHC:39884 MFA No. 4883 of 2020 4. Heard learned counsel Sri Sreenivasan M.Y. for the appellant and learned counsel Sri B. Pradeep for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Though notice is served to respondent No.1, he remained absent. 5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant primarily contended that the Commissioner has grossly erred by exonerating the Insurance Company by fixing entire liability on respondent No.1- onwer/employer. According to him, since the valid insurance policy was covered for the Tractor-Trailer including the driver, the Commissioner ought to have passed the order of pay and recovery instead of completely exonerating the Insurance Company. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that admittedly the Tractor-Trailer was used for the purpose of loading and unloading of manure to one Javaregowda's land on hire basis. In such circumstance, the same was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is specifically mentioned in the policy that the use of the vehicle - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343462020 NC: 2026:KHC:39884 MFA No. 4883 of 2020 for commercial purpose will not be covered under the terms of the policy. In such circumstances, he submits that the Commissioner is justified in exonerating the Insurance Company. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned and award so also other documents made available before this Court. 8. As could be gathered from records, the accident in question caused during the course of employment and employer-employee relationship are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the Tractor-Trailer was insured with respondent No.2. As such, the only point arose for consideration is, whether the Commissioner is justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from liability. No doubt, the insurance policy-Ex.R2 reveals that the vehicle used for the commercial purpose will not be covered under the terms of the policy. However, the same covers the risk of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer. In such circumstance, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in MFA No.24310/2012 c/w MFA No.24309/2012 - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343462020 NC: 2026:KHC:39884 MFA No. 4883 of 2020 dated 28.06.2021 held that though the policy of coverage was only in respect of use of Tractor-Trailer for agricultural purposes, the insured has violated such terms and conditions of insurance policy. However, in view of series of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company is initially liable to pay the compensation and thereafter is at liberty to recover the same from the insured. 9. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satyendra Martu Prabhu vs. Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. in SLP(Civil) No(S).14293-14294/2023 held that, in the event of mere violation of condition of policy itself will not exonerate the Insurance Company while making good the compensation amount, however, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the insured. 10. Placing reliance on the above judgments, I am of the considered view that the finding of the Commissioner in respect of exonerating the Insurance Company is liable to be modified. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010343462020 NC: 2026:KHC:39884 MFA No. 4883 of 2020 11. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is directed to make good the entire payment along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of incident till its deposit to the claimant within six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, however, is at liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1-owner of the Tractor-Trailer. 12. The order of the Commissioner in respect of compensation and other aspects remain unaltered. The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the Commissioner. Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4