Insurer's appeal against an employees' compensation award for a salesman's fatal accident while riding the employer's two-wheeler. The court found the death did not occur in the course of employment and, citing a Supreme Court decision on unlicensed drivers, exonerated the insurer; the employer must pay.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:8628 MFA No. 5380 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5380 OF 2015 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, SRIRAM ARCADE, OPP. HEAD POST OFFICE, UDUPI, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., MOTOR TP APPEALS HUB, 2ND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI CHAMBERS, 9/2, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE-01.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:8628 MFA No. 5380 of 2015
5/291/B, RAJEEV BUILDING, V.P.NAGAR, UDUPI - 576 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(R2 AND 3 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED: 18.03.2015 PASSED IN ECA.NO.1/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ADDITIONAL MACT, UDUPI.
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy., learned counsel for the appellant has appeared in person.
Since question of law is framed and matter is admitted, with the consent of learned counsel for the appellant, it is heard finally.
NC: 2024:KHC:8628 MFA No. 5380 of 2015
referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.
4. The brief facts are these:
The claimants are the parents of the deceased. It is said that the deceased was aged 22 years and he was working as a salesman and delivery boy under the first respondent's Standard Auto Corporation. On the 11th day of May, 2005 at about 11:45 am., the deceased was taking the first respondent's vehicle Kinetic Honda bearing Registration No.KA20-K-1833, near Abhinethri Complex, Chantharu Village, Udupi Taluk, the vehicle got skid and deceased fell down and badly injured on the head and died on the spot. Contending that the accident occurred during the course of employment, the dependants of the deceased filed a petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act seeking compensation.
In response to the notice, the first respondent appeared through his counsel and filed written statement and contended that the deceased died when he was proceeding in the motorcycle and he was working as salesman and the accident
NC: 2024:KHC:8628 MFA No. 5380 of 2015
occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and contended that the Insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.
The second respondent - Insurance company appeared through its counsel and filed written statement and contended that deceased was not employed under the first respondent and it is not the accident during the course of employment. It is also vehemently contended that the deceased was not possessing valid driving license as on the date of accident. Among other grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.
Based on the above pleadings, the MACT framed Issues. The parties led evidence and marked the documents. The MACT vide Judgment and award dated:18.03.2015 partly allowed the petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,32,055/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Two Thousand and Fifty Five only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 12.06.2005 till the date of actual deposit. It is this Judgment that is called into question in this appeal on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:8628 MFA No. 5380 of 2015
RAJINDER KUMAR AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2020 SC 4453 .
Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the appellant and perused the appeal papers and the decision with utmost care.
NC: 2024:KHC:8628 MFA No. 5380 of 2015
The Apex Court in the decision referred to supra has held that a person when he hands his motor-vehicle to a driver owes some responsibility to Society at large. Lives of innocent people are put to risk in case the vehicle is handed over to a person not duly licensed. Therefore, there must be some evidence to show that the owner had either checked the driving license or had given instructions to his driver to get his driving license renewed on expiry thereof. The Apex Court has also held that if there is a breach of terms of the policy and the Insurance
NC: 2024:KHC:8628 MFA No. 5380 of 2015
Company cannot be held liable to satisfy the claim. In the present case, the deceased was not having valid driving license. Hence, the decision of the Apex Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, I have no hesitation to set-aside the Judgment of the MACT in so far as fixing the liability on the Insurance company to pay the compensation.
The questions of law framed by this Court are answered accordingly.
For the reasons stated above, the Judgment dated:18.03.2015 passed by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Udupi and Addl. MACT, Udupi in E.C.A.No.1/2014 is liable to be setaside in so far as fixing the liability on the Insurance company is concerned. Accordingly it is set-aside. The Insurance company is exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation.
NC: 2024:KHC:8628 MFA No. 5380 of 2015
allowed .
Office is directed to transmit the amount in deposit to the
Tribunal forthwith for refund of the same to the Insurance
Company.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the death was during and under the course of employment?
Whether the Insurance Company could be made liable when the deceased driver had no valid driving licence?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Beli Ram vs Rajinder Kumar and AnotherRelied on
AIR 2020 SC 4453 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Sri. Shiva Marakala
Smt. Jalaja Marakala
Sri. Karunakar
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
