SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Mr Manjunath N

SBI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., GROUND & FIRST FLOOR, RUKMINI TOWERS, 3-1, PLATFORM ROAD/ RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560020. REP BY ITS MANAGER.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. PRADEEP B., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

MR. MANJUNATH N, S/O NANJAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, NO.14, MELINAJUGANAHALLI, SRI. SUBRAMANYA GHATI, BENGALURU RURAL DIST. PIN – 561203.

¶14

MR. SANJAY RAMESH SACHDEV NO.27, GIRI SCHOOL STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560020.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:3749 MFA No. 3533 of 2018

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

(R1 IS SERVED;

¶20

VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2024, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22/01/2018 PASSED IN E.C.A.NO.135/2015, BY THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE (SCCH-11), AWARDING COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER / RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN, IN A SUM OF RS.3,49,290/- WITH INTEREST AT 6% FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an order dated 22.01.2018 in E.C.A.No.135/2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.3,49,290/- along with interest at 6% p.a. in a petition filed under Section 22(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “the W.C.Act”).

¶26

None appears for the respondents despite service.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3749 MFA No. 3533 of 2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company places one ground of challenge in the present appeal. He submits that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondent No.1/claimant and respondent No.2/owner. He submits that in this regard he is relying upon the written statement as filed by the respondent No.2/owner.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 is the owner of a Toyota Innova Car bearing registration No.KA04-MJ-5695 which was duly insured by the appellant and that on 10.03.2015 at around midnight while the respondent No.1/claimant was driving the car from Devanahalli towards Bengaluru, the respondent No.1/claimant hit a Petrol Tanker bearing registration No.AP-03-TA-6046 wrongly parked in the middle of the road. As a result of the accident, the respondent No.1/claimant sustained grievous injuries.

¶31

4.1. It is the case of the appellant/Insurance Company that the respondent No.1/claimant was aged 27 years and employed with respondent No.2/owner. He had a valid driving licence and was working as a driver at a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month.

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3749 MFA No. 3533 of 2018

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

The respondent No.1/claimant suffered severe injuries and was hospitalized for a period from 11.03.2015 to 21.03.2015. Thus, the claim petition was filed under Section 22(1) of the W.C.Act.

¶35

4.2. The case was contested by the appellant/Insurance Company and respondent No.2/owner. Both of them denied the averments in the petition. However, the insurance policy was not denied by the appellant/Insurance Company. It was also not disputed that there was any violation of the terms of the policy.

¶36

4.3. However, the respondent No.2/owner had stated that there was no relationship of employer-employee.

¶37

4.4. The learned Trial Court framed the following issues:

¶38

“1) Whether the petitioner proves that he has sustained grievous injuries as mentioned in wound certificate, in a road traffic accident on 10.03.2015 at midnight 12.00 during the course of employment when he was driving the car bearing Regn.No.KA-04-MJ-5695, dashed against the Tanker bearing Reg.No.AP-03-TA-6046 which was wrongly parked in the middle of the road without giving any indication near Birasnadra gate, near Bairaveshwara petrol bunk on DevanahalliDoddaballapura NH-207 road?

¶39

2) Whether the petitioner proves that he was the employee of the respondent No.1 as on the date of alleged accident?

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:3749 MFA No. 3533 of 2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

3) Whether petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

¶44

4) What Order or award?”

¶45

After examining the parties and the evidence, the learned

¶46

Trial Court came to a conclusion that the injury happened during the course of employment and awarded a sum of Rs.3,49,290/- to the respondent No.1/claimant along with interest at 6% p.a.

¶47

As stated above, the only ground for challenge by the appellant/Insurance Company is that the relationship of employer and employee did not exist between respondent No.1/claimant and respondent No.2/owner. Thus the learned Trial Court could not have awarded any compensation.

¶48

The issue that arises before this Court is, whether the learned Trial Court had erred in its finding that a relationship of employer and employee existed between the respondent No.1/claimant as well as the respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle.

¶49

The records reflects that although the respondent No.2/owner filed his written statement, he did not appear for

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:3749 MFA No. 3533 of 2018

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

evidence. The evidence was lead by respondent No.1/claimant who was examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 and 3 who were the doctor and the Medical Record Officer of the hospital, respectively. The appellant/Insurance Company examined an official of the company as R.W.1. However, there was no evidence led either by the owner of the vehicle nor did the owner appear in person to prove his contents of the written statement.

¶53

P.W.1 in the examination-in-chief clearly set out that the injury was sustained by him during the course of his employment and that he was employed by respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle. It is opposite to extract the relevant extract in this behalf as follows:

¶54

“2. I submit that, I prefer this petition seeking compensation in respect of personal injuries sustained by me, in the motor vehicle accident arising in the course and out of employment while discharging my duty as a driver in the 1^st Respondent’s vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-04-MJ-5695.

¶55

xxxx

¶56

5. I submit that, I was an employee and working as a driver under the 1^st Respondent, he was paying a monthly wages of Rs.10,000/- per month. The nature of the duty has entrusted to me as a Driver in the vehicle Reg.No.KA-04-MJ-5695. I have got valid and effective driving license to drive the said vehicle.

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:3749 MFA No. 3533 of 2018

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

6. I submit that, the above said accident has been reported to Vishwanathapura Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District and the case has been registered in FIR Cr.No.49/2015, under Section 279 & 337 of IPC.”

¶61

The learned Trial Court examined the evidence as set out

¶62

by the parties and reached a conclusion that although the relationship of employer and employee was disputed by the respondent No.2/owner, he neither appeared in the witness box nor was any other evidence produced to support this contention. In this behalf, the learned Trial Court has held that since no evidence was led, there existed a relationship of employer and employee between the respondent No.1/claimant and respondent No.2/owner. The relevant extract of this Impugned Award is set out below:

¶63

“15. While discussing issue No.1 to 3, I have arrived at an conclusion that there existed relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondent No.1, that the petitioner has sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 10.03.2015 at midnight 12.00, when he was driving car belonging to the respondent No.1, during the course of his employment and that the policy of the said vehicle was valid at the time of accident. In the light of the above, though I hold that respondent No.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of accident till realization. In the result, issue No.3 is answered partly in the Affirmative.”

¶64

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3749 MFA No. 3533 of 2018

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is

¶67

unable to show to the Court any other evidence or document in support of his contention that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the respondents. No evidence was placed on record before the learned Trial Court either by the respondents. In view thereof, this Court is unable to find any infirmity with the Impugned Award. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶68

All pending applications stand closed.

¶69

Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA

¶70

(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶71

YN

¶72

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mr Manjunath N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. v. Mr Manjunath N

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Y H Vs the Manager

Purushothama K N Vs Kalakesh @ Kalaka Mallesh K

Puttegowda Vs the Manager

Shri. Azmathullah Khan Vs Shri. Mohammed Saleem

Sri Guttappa Vs Sri Shivarudraiah

Smt Sushila Bai @ Susheela a Varma Vs mr sabu t varghese