Dismissed¶¶35

Sri. Manjunath v. the Manager

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026MFA/3138/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), MFA No. 3138 of 2016 (WC), NC: 2026:KHC:27849, decided 10.06.2026 by P Sree Sudha, J. Appeal under S.30(1) Employees Compensation Act against dismissal of claim in ECA.No.110/2014 (Rs.8,00,000 claimed; incident dated 12.12.2009). Held: injuries were sustained in an assault by Arun Kumar (Crime No.30/2009, Sections 307 and 391 IPC), not in an accident; appeal dismissed confirming the Tribunal's award; appellant's counsel absent. Respondents: Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd. (R1, Adv. Ravi S. Samprathi) and Bharthiyappa (R2, notice service held sufficient vide V/O dated 10.07.2023). Keywords: Employees Compensation Act, assault vs accident, claim dismissal, non-prosecution of appeal.

What did the court decide?

None; the appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal's award dismissing the claim petition was confirmed.

Sri. Manjunath Vs the Manager — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:27849 MFA No. 3138 of 2016

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3138 OF 2016 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATH S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT BABUSABPALYA, 3RD CROSS BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY P, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE MANAGER

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS. CO. LTD., SUNDARAM TOWERS, NO.45 & 46 WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 014.

¶15

2. BHARTHIYAPPA

¶16

FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN

¶17

MAJOR, R/AT NO.42/3 BABUSABPALYA, KALYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 043.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAVI S. SAMPRATHI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 10.07.2023 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶20

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27849 MFA No. 3138 of 2016

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

04.02.2016 PASSED IN ECA.NO.110/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, & XXVI ACMM, & EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. Even

¶28

after the matter was listed under the caption "for dismissal", he has not turned up before the Court nor shown any interest in prosecuting the appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is present and stated that this appeal is filed against the award of the Tribunal in ECA No.110/2014 dated 04.02.2016 on the file of the X Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & XXVI

¶30

ACMM & Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bangalore.

¶31

The claim petition was filed contending that the petitioner met with an accident on 12.12.2009 and claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. But the Tribunal

¶32

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27849 MFA No. 3138 of 2016

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

considering the entire evidence on record dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the appellant/claimant has preferred the present appeal.

¶35

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the appellant/claimant had not met with an accident and sustained injuries. The claimant sustained injuries in an assault by one Arun Kumar. A case in Crime No.30/2009 was registered against Arun Kumar for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 391 of the IPC, and charge sheet was also filed against him. The Tribunal, after considering the said aspect, rightly dismissed the claim petition. Therefore, this Court finds that there are no merits in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the award passed by the Tribunal.

¶36

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶37

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri. Manjunath v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Manjunath v. the Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Shulapani S K

Smt Rangamma Vs Sri Madhu K T @ Madhusudan

Smt Amrutha Vs Sri Udaya Shivakumar

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri Venkataramu

Sri. K. Raghuram Vs Branch Manager

Sri. G. v. Varadaraju Vs M/S United India Insurance