In an appeal against an award under the Employees Compensation Act, the High Court held that the trial court erred in denying interest. The court allowed the appeal in part and directed the insurance company to pay 12% interest from the date of the accident.
The appellant is entitled to interest at 12% from 05.08.2017 payable within four weeks.
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 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5038 OF 2021 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. PALAKSHA K. M. S/O. MALLEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. KURUVANGI VILLAGE AND POST, CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK - 577 101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATE GOWDA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by V KRISHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI ADVOCATE FOR R2.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.02.2021 PASSED IN E.C.A NO. 28/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AND 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
NC: 2024:KHC:11192 MFA No. 5038 of 2021
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 17.02.2021 passed by Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkamagaluru in E.C.A.No.28/2017. This appeal is founded on the premise of inadequacy of compensation. Hence, the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation.
their status before the Trial Court.
The appellant was working as a lorry driver under the respondent No.1 and on 05.08.2017 when he was driving the lorry from Puna to Bangalore loaded by poultry medicines as per the instruction of respondent No.1. While he was driving the vehicle on NH-48 road, Sira-Timkur, near Ajjagondanahally in front of Thathayyana Gadduge, Bellavi Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, a vehicle came from the opposite direction on wrong side and in order to avoid the accident, the appellant took the lorry towards the left side of the road, due to the accident occurred claimant suffered grievous injuries, he was shifted to
Government hospital, Tumkur and later shifted to Sanjay Gandhi hospital, Bengaluru, where he took treatment and incurred financial expenditures. Due to which injuries suffered he filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent.
3.1. On service of notice, respondent filed statement of objections, denied the claim of the appellant including the relationship of employer and employee. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the claim petition. However, respondent No.1 - employee did not file statement of objections.
3.2. On the basis of pleadings, the Trial Court framed relevant issues for consideration.
3.3. In order to substantiate the issues and to establish the case, the appellant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked documents as Exs.P1 to P47. On the other hand, respondents got examined as RW.1 and got marked document as Ex.R1. Court Commissioner got examined as CW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.C1 and C2.
3.4. On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned counsel for both parties, the tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.1,58,459/- and also held that the respondent No.2 - insurance company to pay the compensation and denied the payment of interest to the appellants.
3.5. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award for non-granting the interest the appellant - petitioner before this Court challenging the same.
driver working under the respondent No.1 as an employee and during under the course of his employment he suffered injuries while he met an accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has accepted all these awarded compensation. The respondent is not in appeal, the only point for consideration is whether the appellant having been denied of the interest is entitled for the same in view of Motor vehicle policy being enforce as on date of occurrence of accident. The occurrence of accident, involvement of the vehicle, the appellant being the employer have been established and proved by production of the records at Ex.P1 to P47 and existence of policy is also is not dispute as Ex.R1 is produced by respondent himself. The Tribunal has accepted the version of the appellant and awarded compensation by taking the income as Rs.8,000 p.m. and applying the relevant factor of 178.49 and on deduction of 60% of the income as it is a case of injury and disability is taken at 15%. Therefore, considering all these aspects, the Trial Court having accepted the version of the appellant with regard to the injuries suffered and the entitlement to the compensation, has denied the interest solely on the ground that the brevity of contract exempts the payment of interest by production of
Ex.R1 which is the policy. On careful examination of the insurance policy, nothing is mentioned with regard to exemption of payment of interest as Motor vehicle policy and nothing is explicit or evident from the policy that insurer would not be entitled to pay the interest, under the circumstances, the Trial Court has committed an error is not awarding interest to the appellant. The petition is filed on the 'Employees Compensation Act 1923', and interest would be liable to be paid by the Insurance - Company in the present case as the policy is of Motor Vehicle Policy.
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
TIN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to interest on compensation when the trial court awarded compensation but denied interest.
Whether the Motor Vehicle Policy exemptions cover a denial of interest in an Employees Compensation Act claim.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the trial court's finding that the brevity of contract exempts payment of interest.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Palaksha K. M.
E. T. Keshavamurthy
The Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Praadeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
