- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21352 MFA No. 3507 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3507 OF 2017 (WC) BETWEEN: SMT. VIMALA W/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/A KUNDADRI KENDALBYLU POST THIRTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRAKASHA HEGDE K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. A.N.SANJAY S/O NAGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O BEGUR VILLAGE SRINGERI TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 139 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE KOPPA TALUK CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 126 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.NAGARAJAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MFA FILED U/S 30(1)(A)OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 07/09/2016, PASSED IN ECA. NO.02/2015, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., THIRTHAHALLI, Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21352 MFA No. 3507 of 2017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in E.C.A.No.02/2015 dated 07.09.2016 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Thirthahalli, the appellant/claimant is before this Court. 2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident. It is the case of the claimant that the husband of the claimant was working as an employee on wages with respondent No.1 in his tractor for filling sand and he was paid an amount of Rs.200/- daily wages and Batta of Rs.50/- per day. On 05.11.2008, he went to load sand and when they were proceeding at Agumbe- Sringeri road, the accident took place and the husband of the petitioner sustained serious injuries and died due to the said accident. 3. The Tribunal had held that the deceased was an employee of respondent No.1 and also granted compensation of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21352 MFA No. 3507 of 2017 an amount of Rs.5,03,735/-. However, the Tribunal had exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that it is a liability only policy and the vehicle should be used for agricultural purpose and as per the respondents, the vehicle was used for non-agricultural purpose. As such, there is clear violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and held that respondent No.1/owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that there is no evidence before the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion that the vehicle is used for non-agricultural purposes. Basing on the assertions made by the respondents, the Tribunal had exonerated the Insurance Company. It is submitted that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company submits that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and further, the vehicle is used for non-agricultural purposes - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21352 MFA No. 3507 of 2017 and as such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and they have not obtained the premium. It is submitted that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal had rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from paying the compensation. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the entire material on record. The employee-employer relationship is not denied. According to the Insurance Company, the vehicle is used for non-agricultural purposes. This Court has perused the award passed by the Tribunal. In that, except the evidence of the Insurance Company, there is no other evidence to prove that the vehicle is used for non- agricultural purposes. In those circumstances, there was no basis for the Tribunal to give such a finding and exonerate the Insurance Company. The remaining other grounds which the Insurance Company is agitating are not at all considered or argued before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, this Court cannot go into the other grounds that are raised by the Insurance Company. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21352 MFA No. 3507 of 2017 7. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed and respondent No.2/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. i. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount as per the award. ii. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iii. No costs. iv. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE MEG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14