M/S Icici Lombard Vs Shivakumar @

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:33111 MFA No. 6473 of 2016

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6473 OF 2016 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD SVR COMPLEX, NO.89, HOSUR MAIN ROAD MADIVALA, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 68 REP BY BRANCH MANAGER, NOW REP BY ITS LEGAL MANAGER M/S ICICI LOMBARD GIC LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, THE ESTATE, 9TH FLOOR DICKENSON ROAD, M G ROAD, BANGALORE 42

¶9

APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. BC SHIVANNE GOWDA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed AND: by PADMASHREE 1. SHIVAKUMAR @ SHEKHAR SHIVANNEGOWDA METI DESAI S/O GUNDAPPA METI, Location: High AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, Court of Karnataka R/AT KILLED ONI , KUKNOUR POST, YALBURGA TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT.

¶12

TRISHUL CONCRETE PVT LTD

¶13

K R S CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

¶14

M G M TRANSPORT PVT LTD

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:33111 MFA No. 6473 of 2016

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

ALL ARE R/AT ITS CHAMBER SITUATED AT BARATENA AGRAHARA, BEGUR HOBLI, SINGASANDRA, BANGALOURU 560100.

¶18

RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;

¶20

V/O DTD 31.01.2023, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.03.2016 PASSED ON ECA NO.237/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 7TH ADDITIONAL JUDGE & 32ND ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU,AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,30,900/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION AND ETC,.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is field by the insurance company against the judgment and award dated 19.03.2016 passed in ECA.No.237/2014 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court of Small Causes Bengaluru, seeking for reduction of compensation.

¶25

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant / insurance company. Respondent No.1 served and

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33111 MFA No. 6473 of 2016

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

unrepresented. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶29

The petitioner/injured met with an accident on 18.03.2007 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of Rs.7,30,900/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from date of accident till realisation. Aggrieved by the said award, insurance company preferred appeal and mainly contended that the petitioner preferred the claim petition after lapse of eight years and also on the following substantial questions of law:

¶30

i) Whether there was any employer and employee relationship between the parties?

¶31

ii) Whether the monthly income of the petitioner is to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month or Rs.4,000/per month as per the provisions of workmen compensation Act, 1923?

¶32

Petitioner was aged 22 years doing helper work and earning Rs.8,000/- per month but he has not filed any income proof. As per the Provisions Of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923 his income is to be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month. It is

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:33111 MFA No. 6473 of 2016

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

stated in the claim petition that, the petitioner is working under respondent No.2 as helper in the cement mixture lorry bearing No.KA-01-AF-9510, belonging to respondent No.3. Owner of the vehicle in his written statement clearly stated that, he never engaged the petitioner. As per the wound certificates Exs.P10 and 13 the petitioner sustained alleged history of cut injury over right hand at work place with pressure cutting device. This clearly shows that, he was not working as a helper in the lorry at the time of the accident. It is for the petitioner to prove employer and employee relationship. He has examined the owner of the vehicle, but owner of the vehicle denied the relationship between him and the petitioner and thus he failed to prove employer and employee relationship. The Tribunal observed that in the FIR he was shown as helper and later charge sheet was also filed against the driver of the lorry. The said observation is without any evidence is not on proper appreciation of facts. As the petitioner failed to prove the employer and employee relationship, he is not entitled for any compensation. The Tribunal erred in granting Rs.7,30,900/without any basis. Therefore, this Court finds that, it is just and reasonable to set aside the award of the Tribunal.

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:33111 MFA No. 6473 of 2016

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

In the result, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The appeal is allowed;

¶42

ii) The judgment and award dated 19.03.2016 passed in ECA.No.237/2014 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Court of Small Causes Bengaluru, is set aside;

¶43