Allowed

Ananda. K v. Narayana Murthy

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2023MFA/1689/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a compensation claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It held that the employer is not liable only if the accident is directly attributable to alcohol consumption, not merely due to drunk status. Since the insurance company failed to prove causation between the accident and alcohol intake, the order was set aside for fresh consideratio

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; lower court order setting 22.03.2016 set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Ananda. K Vs Narayana Murthy — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1689 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANANDA. K AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH, R/O. ANNENAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, OORUKERE, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR;

¶11

Digitally SRI.PATEL D KAREGOWDA.,ADVOCATE) signed by JAI JYOTHI J AND: Location: HIGH COURT OF 1. NARAYANA MURTHY KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶12

NARAYANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O. LATE RANGAPPA, R/O. ANNENAHALLI, OORUKERE POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.

¶13

BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

¶14

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶15

G.E. PLAZA, AIR PORT ROAD, YERAWAD, PUNE-411 006, BRANCH OFFICE, SERVICE ADDRESS:

¶16

MANAGER, BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEXT TO MAHAVEER JAIN COLLEGE, NEW MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU-560 047.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. L. DAYANANDA .,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2016 PASSED IN ECA.NO.59/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

This is an appeal filed by the workman aggrieved by the dismissal of the order passed in ECA No.59/2014, dated 22.03.2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge And MACT, Tumkur.

¶24

The claim petition is filed under Section-10 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation. The case is that the claimant was working

¶25

as a Cleaner and the first respondent was the owner of the vehicle and during the course of employment the claimant had sustained injuries. On 03.07.2009 the lorry was carrying maida and rava from Hosakote to Tumkur. When the lorry was stopped in front of Tumkur Traders, Mandipet, Tumkur for unloading the goods from the said lorry as per the direction of the first respondent, the driver of the lorry and the claimant were correcting the tarpal on

¶26

the load of the lorry and due to heavy rains, the claimant unexpectedly fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to the Government Hospital,

¶27

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶29

Tumkur as inpatient for eight days and was treated for the fracture injury.

¶30

The court below considering Exhibit-R1 copy of the MLC register wherein it was mentioned that the claimant was under intoxication and the court below observed that as per Section-3 of the Workmen Compensation Act 1923 (for brevity 'WC Act) since the claimant was under the influence of the alcohol he was not entitled for compensation and accordingly dismissed the claim petition.

¶31

Learned counsel appearing for the claimant

¶32

submits that the court below without any basis has held that Section-3(1)(b) of WC Act was attracted. It is further submitted that as per the MLC Extract there was breath smell of alcohol. Except that nothing else has been stated and basing on that the accident cannot be attributed to consumption of alcohol. he submits that the burden lies on the insurance company to prove that the accident had

¶33

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶34

taken place because the claimant had consumed alcohol and unless and until that is satisfied the insurance company cannot have the benefit of Section-3(1)(b)(i) of WC Act. He submits that the insurance company has marked the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the owner and the driver of the vehicle wherein they have categorically stated that it is by way of accident that he sustained injuries and not because of consuming alcohol.

¶35

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - insurance company submits that the MLC extract clearly shows that the claimant was under the influence of the alcohol and Section-3(1)(b)(i) of WC Act is attracted, the employer is not liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the statement under Section-161 of the Cr.P.C has no evidentiary value. He further submits that it is for the workman to prove by enclosing necessary evidence that it was an accident. As the medical records are against the workman he submits that the court below

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶37

had rightly dismissed the petition filed under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel on either

¶39

side, perused the entire material on record. In this case before going into the merits of the matter it is appropriate to have a look at Section-3(1)(a) and (b) of the WC Act, which reads as follows:

¶40

"3. Employer's liability for compensation -

¶41

(1) If personal injury is caused to a workman by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, his employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this chapter:

¶42

Provided that the employer shall not be so liable -

¶43

(a) in respect of any injury which does not result in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period exceeding three days;

¶44

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶45

(b) in respect of any [injury, not resulting in death, caused by] an accident which is directly attributable to -

¶46

(i) the workman having been at the time thereof under the influence of drink or drugs, or

¶47

(ii) the willful disobedience of the workman to an order expressly given, or to a rule expressly framed, for the purpose of securing the safety of workman, or

¶48

(iii) the willful removal or disregard by the workman of any safety guard or other device which he knew to have been provided for the purpose of securing the safety of workman."

¶49

A plain reading of the aforesaid section makes it clear that if the accident is directly attributable to the employee that he was under the influence of drink or drugs, then the employer is not liable to pay the compensation. In this case according to the workman who

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶52

was a cleaner of the lorry, while he and the driver of the lorry were correcting the tarpal on the load of the lorry fell down and sustained injuries. This Court finds force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that just because he consumed alcohol that cannot be a ground to disentitle him from paying the compensation, but the accident has to be attributed to the consumption of the alcohol. Apart from this the medical records do not say that the claimant was under the influence of the alcohol and according to the claimant when they have given a statement under Section-161 of Crpc which was filed along with this case, he ought to have examined the owner and the driver to substantiate his case, to which the workman failed to do. The claimant has not examined anyone except examining himself as PW-1.

¶53

In these circumstance, this Court deems it

¶54

appropriate to set-aside the award the order passed in ECA No.59/2014, dated 22.03.2016 by the II Additional

¶55

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶56

Senior Civil Judge And MACT, Tumkur for fresh

¶57

consideration.

¶58

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the

¶59

matter is remanded to the court below for fresh consideration:

¶60

i) Without further notice, the parties shall appear before the court below on 18.12.2023 and within three months from 18.12.2023 the court below shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶61

ii) The parties are at liberty to adduced further evidence.

¶62

iii) All the contentions of both the parties are left open.

¶63

iv) 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.

¶64

10 -

¶65

NC: 2023:KHC:43734 MFA No. 1689 of 2017

¶66

iii) No costs.

¶67

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand

¶68

closed.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

JJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 76

Ananda. K v. Narayana Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananda. K v. Narayana Murthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Shivaraj @ Rajesh Vs Venkataswamy Reddy

The Divisional Manager Vs Avinash Shetty

Basavarajappa H M Vs Jayanna

Mr Vemanarayana Vs the Managing Director

Vijayakumar B.R Vs B.G. Paramesh

Sri v Krishne Gowda Vs Sri R Ravi Kumar