Insurance company appealed a workmen's compensation award for a driver killed in an accident, alleging no proven employment relationship and no valid driving licence. The court found the complaint and licence evidence sufficient to establish employment with valid licence coverage and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1910 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
THE CLAIM MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SUNDARAM TOWERS, NO.45 & 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600 014
NOW AT ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD SUBRAMANIAM BUILDING, II FLOOR, NO.1, CLUB HOUSE ROAD, ANNA SALAI CHENNAI-600 002 …APPELLANT
(BY SRI. O MAHESH.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
AGE 63 YEARS, S/O LATE KADAIAH RESIDING AT JANATHA HOUSE, NADUVALAPALYA KASABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK-572113
NC: 2024:KHC:9527 MFA No. 1910 of 2017
HEBBUR TUMKUR-572101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.R. RAMESH.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R3 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED V/O DTD. 10.07.2019; R1 IS TREATED AS LR OF DECEASED R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.01.2017 PASSED IN ECA.NO.10/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GUBBI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 6,50,730/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DISMISSAL, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING.
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order passed in ECA No.10/2014,
dated 03.01.2017, by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Gubbi, the insurance company is before this court.
appointed as a driver about one year prior to the accident and the owner of the vehicle was paying an amount of Rs.6,000/- p.m., apart from the daily bata of Rs.100/-. On 19.12.2011 while the deceased was driving the Mahindra goods vehicle as per the instructions of the owner at that time some unknown vehicle driven by its driver in a high speed came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Mahindra-Goods vehicle and caused the accident. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and while he was being shifted to the General Hospital Tumkur, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.
NC: 2024:KHC:9527 MFA No. 1910 of 2017
the goods vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
that there is no positive evidence on record to show that there is employer-employee relationship between the
deceased and the first respondent. No cogent evidence was adduced before the court below. The court below had blindly saddled the liability on the insurance company though it is specifically pleaded and proved that the deceased driver had no valid driving license by adducing cogent, oral as well as documentary evidence such as Exhibits-R1 to R4. It is submitted that the court below failed to consider the evidence in its proper perspect and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation.
i) Whether the Tribunal / Commissioner was justified in holding that the deceased was under employment of insured when insurer specifically denied and claimant as well as insured failed to prove the same by conclusive positive legal evidence in respect thereof?
ii) Whether the judgment / order of the Tribunal / Commissioner would be sustainable in the light of the grounds raised in the above appeal?
iii) Whether the order / award of the commissioner is otherwise opposed to law, facts, material evidence and circumstances of the case on hand?
7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
/ claimants submits that the court below had rightly basing
on the evidence held that there is a employee-employer relationship and there is a valid insurance policy as such the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. He had relied on the judgment of this court in the case of
CLAIM MANAGER SRI RAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS. A LAKSHMI AND OTHERS1
wherein this court had considered Exhibit-P9 the MLC Register which states that the deceased was taken to the hospital on 03.05.2014 and it is stated in the history that
1 MFA NO.2187/2017, DATED 26.08.2022
the patient was brought to the hospital and died while taking treatment. It is stated in the MLC register that the deceased was working as loader and unloader in the Tata ACE vehicle. Considering the said entry in the MLC register in the above case this court has held that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the respondent-owner. It is submitted that the court below had rightly held that there is employer-employee relationship between the parties.
would be very difficult for the claimant to examine the owner of the vehicle and to prove the employer-employee relationship. The vehicle in which the claimant was travelling is a Mahindra goods vehicle. According to the respondent – insurance company, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger. The complaint that was given immediately shows that the deceased was the driver of the vehicle. According to the Insurance Company he is a gratuitous passenger. No positive evidence is let in by the insurance company in this regard. The complaint which is given immediately after the accident shows that he is a driver of the vehicle.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/JUDGE
JJ
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the claimants proved employer-employee relationship between the deceased driver and the insured owner.
Whether the insurance company was liable to pay workmen's compensation given the driving licence evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Claim Manager Sri Ram General Insurance Company Limited vs. A Lakshmi and OthersRelied on¶7
MFA NO.2187/2017, DATED 26.08.2022
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Claim Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited
Eramma
Revanna
Lalitha Kanneganti
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
