The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Paramesha L — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Paramesha L — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed in part: the award of Rs.80,000/- under the head of future medical expenses is set aside; the rest of the Tribunal's award is affirmed; the amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

Issue for consideration

Whether the injured driver, who on the date of accident had borrowed/hired his employer-owner's vehicle for personal (family) use and was himself driving it with his family members, retained an employer-employee relationship with the vehicle owner such that liability could be fastened on the Insurance Company under the Employees Compensation Act, and whether the claim petition was maintainable. +1 more

Court's answer

The mere fact that the vehicle was hired by the injured claimant and that he was travelling along with his family members does not break the umbilical cord of employer-employee relationship, because the evidence on record clearly indicates that the vehicle was hired and the benefit thereof accrued to the owner of the vehicle.

Ratio / Principle

The fact that the injured himself was driving the vehicle cannot be a ground to deny compensation.

Key takeaways

There is no error in the Tribunal saddling the liability on the Insurance Company.ratio¶6
The Tribunal committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.80,000/- under the head of future medical expenses, which is liable to be set aside.ratio¶6

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Miscellaneous First Appeal (WC) under S.30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited against the judgment and award dated 09.07.2018 of the Member, MACT, XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-14) in ECA No.123/2016, which awarded Rs.8,70,135/- with interest at 12% p.a. to the injured driver Paramesha L., employed for over two years with the vehicle owner Devaraju G. The claimant met with an accident on 21.07.2016 while driving the owner's Toyota Etios (KA-41-A-6096), which had been hired by him and his family for a family function. Held (single judge, Vijaykumar A. Patil): the mere fact that the vehicle was hired by the injured claimant and that he was travelling with his family members does not break the 'umbilical cord' of employer-employee relationship, since the benefit of the hire accrued to the owner; the injured himself driving the vehicle is not a ground to deny compensation; hence no error in saddling liability on the insurer. However, the Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.80,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is set aside. Appeal allowed in part; rest of the award affirmed; deposit transmitted to the Tribunal.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23414 M.F.A. No.10159/2018

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10159/2018 (WC)

BETWEEN:

THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, SM TOWERS 11TH MAIN ROAD, 3RD BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011.

Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ALSO AT RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED NO.28, 5TH FLOOR EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 NOW REPRESENTED BY MANAGER LEGAL.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. ASHOK N. PATIL, ADV.,)

AND:

PARAMESHA .L S/O LAKSHMAN RAO R AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.203 S.P.G. COLONY MAGADI MAIN ROAD TAVAREKERE BENGALURU-562130.

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23414 M.F.A. No.10159/2018

HC-KAR

DEVARAJU .G S/O GANGAPPA NO.01, KURUBARAHALLI KITHANAHALLI BENGALURU-562130.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. N. GOPALAKRISHNA, ADV., FOR R1 SRI. K.V. NAIK, ADV., FOR R2)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.09.07.2018 PASSED ON ECA NO.123/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,70,135/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE O ACCIDENT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 09.07.2018 passed in ECA.No.123/2016 by the Member, MACT, XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-14) (for short 'the Tribunal').

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23414 M.F.A. No.10159/2018

HC-KAR

Sri.Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel appearing for

the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in fastening liability on the Insurance Company without appreciating the fact that on the date of accident, the claimant had borrowed the vehicle from its owner for his personal use, and the accident occurred during such personal use. Therefore, the accident had no nexus with his employment and the relationship of employer and employee did not exist. It is submitted that PW1/injured in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that he had borrowed the vehicle for personal use and was travelling along with his family members at the time of the accident, which itself demonstrates the absence of any employeremployee relationship. Consequently, the claim petition itself was not maintainable and the Tribunal ought to have rejected it on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23414 M.F.A. No.10159/2018

HC-KAR

impermissible under the statute. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

Per contra, Sri.N.Gopalakrishna, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal considering the evidence on record, has rightly recorded the finding that the injured was in employment of the owner of the vehicle from last 2 years. It is submitted that on the date of the accident, although the vehicle was engaged by the family members and the injured was driving, that itself would not break the umbilical cord of the employer-employee relationship. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect and awarded just compensation. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23414 M.F.A. No.10159/2018

HC-KAR

The appellant/Insurance Company as well as

the respondent/injured claimant are not in dispute that the respondent met with a road accident on 21.07.2016 while he was driving the LMV Mot Cab, namely Toyota Etios bearing registration No.KA-41-A-6096. The averments in the claim petition indicate that respondent No.1 had been working as a driver under respondent No.2 for more than 2 years. On the date of the accident, the said vehicle had been hired from its owner for the purpose of attending a family function and the claimant, along with his family members, was travelling in the said vehicle. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the claimant was in the employment of respondent No.2 for the preceding two years, which is more evident from Ex.P2, the statement of the injured recorded by the jurisdictional police. A perusal of the said statement makes it clear that respondent No.1 was working under respondent No.2 and that on 21.07.2016, he and his family members had hired the vehicle for family travel, during which the accident

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:23414 M.F.A. No.10159/2018

HC-KAR

occurred. In my considered view, the mere fact that the vehicle was hired by the injured claimant and that he was travelling along with his family members would not break the umbilical cord of employer-employee relationship as the evidence on record clearly indicates that the vehicle was hired and the benefit thereof accrued to the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the fact that the injured himself was driving the vehicle itself cannot be a ground to deny compensation.

For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any error in the Tribunal saddling the liability on the Insurance Company. However, insofar as the contention with regard to the award of compensation towards future medical expenses is concerned, the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding a sum of Rs.80,000/under the head, which is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part . The award of compensation by the Tribunal of Rs.80,000/- under the head of future medical expenses is hereby set aside. Rest

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:23414 M.F.A. No.10159/2018

HC-KAR

of the award stands affirmed. The amount in deposit shall

be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.

Sd/(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE

ABK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16