Allowed¶58

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Umadevi K

Karnataka HC6 Jul 2026MFA/668/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Employees Compensation Act; S.30(1) appeal; workmen compensation (WC); delay of 5 years in filing claim petition; Limitation Act, 1963 S.3; conductor; KSRTC bus accident 03.04.2009; United India Insurance Co. Ltd.; amputation of four fingers; 47% disability; monthly wages Rs.7,820 vs Rs.4,000 statutory cap; interest 12% from date of accident; ECA No.280/2014; MACT Bengaluru; award set aside; appeal allowed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru, in ECA No.280 of 2014 is set aside. ¶58

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Umadevi K — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal allowed; the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru, in ECA No.280 of 2014 is set aside.

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the claim petition filed on 02.08.2014, about five years after the 03.04.2009 accident, without any delay condonation application or reasons for the delay, was maintainable. +3 more

¶46

Court's answer

Though the claimant met with the accident on 03.04.2009, she kept quiet for 5 years without filing a claim petition and filed it only on 02.08.2014; per her admission she filed no delay condonation application and assigned no reasons for the delay, and being a working conductor she knew of her entitlement to compensation.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The claimant is continuing in the same job and there is no loss of employment to her due to the injuries sustained in the accident.

¶53

Key takeaways

The Tribunal granted compensation and also interest from the date of the accident without considering all the aspects, which is not a proper appreciation of facts.ratio¶57
The Tribunal's order is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside.ratio¶57

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (P Sree Sudha J.), 06.07.2026 — Insurer's appeal under S.30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act against the award dated 08.05.2015 in ECA No.280/2014 (IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru), which granted a conductor, injured in a 03.04.2009 bus accident (fracture of left hand wrist and amputation of four fingers; 47% disability), Rs.3,87,110/- with 12% interest. The Court found that the claim petition was filed on 02.08.2014, about five years after the accident, with no delay condonation application or explanation for the delay, that the claimant continued in the same job without loss of employment, and that grant of interest from the date of the accident was not proper appreciation of facts. Holding the Tribunal's order patently erroneous, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the award.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:33609 MFA No. 668 of 2016

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 668 OF 2016 (WC)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. BASAVANAGUDI BRANCH, BANGALORE-560 004 THROUGH IT’S REGIONAL OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., 5^TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER MR. K N SURESH.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. ANUP SEETHARAM RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SMT. UMADEVI K AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, Digitally W/O LATE G K KARIYAPPA, signed by PADMASHREE RESIDING AT NO.866, 35^TH MAIN, SHEKHAR 11^TH CROSS, 1^ST PHASE, J P NAGAR, DESAI BANGALORE SOUTH 560 078. Location: High Court of 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR Karnataka K S R T C .,

¶15

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K S R T C ., K H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE-560 027.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. H R RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:33609 MFA No. 668 of 2016

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED08.05.2015 PASSED ON ECA NO.280/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 9^TH ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND 34^TH ACMM,COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT-7, BENGALURU, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.3,87,110/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT.

¶22

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 02.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶23

CAV JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 08.05.2015 passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru, in ECA No.280 of 2014. The petitioner-claimant, who is a conductor, met with an accident on 03.04.2009 and filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.3,87,110/with interest at 12% per annum from 03.05.2009 till the date of payment.

¶25

Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant-Insurance company has preferred this appeal and mainly contended that

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:33609 MFA No. 668 of 2016

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the claim petition was filed after 5 years on 02.08.2014, though the claimant suffered injury on 03.04.2009, and she has not given any reason or assigned any grounds for delay in filing the claim petition. She continued in the employment and there was no impediment for her to file claim petition within a statutory period of 2 years. It is contended that the claimant admitted that she has not assigned any reasons for filing claim petition after lapse of 5 years. It is also contended that the Tribunal has taken monthly wages as Rs. 7,820/- per month for an accident dated 03.04.2009. As per the statute, maximum wages could be considered as Rs.4,000/- per month and the compensation can be granted at the rate of Rs.1,98,043/-. But

¶29

the Tribunal granted Rs.3,87,110/-. It is contended that the Tribunal also arbitrarily granted interest at 12% per annum from 03.05.2009 in the claim Petition filed on 02.08.2014. Loss of earning capacity was considered as 47% and she suffered amputation of the thumb bone, which has not resulted in any loss of earning capacity and she continues the same job. Thus, requested for setting aside the impugned order.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:33609 MFA No. 668 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Section 3 of Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows:

¶34

“3. Bar of limitation.—

¶35

(1)Subject to the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence.

¶36

(2)For the purposes of this Act —

¶37

(a)a suit is instituted —(i)in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer;(ii)in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and(iii)in the case of a claim against a company which is being wound up by the court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator;

¶38

(b)any claim by way of a set off or a counter claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted —(i)in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded;(ii)in the case of a counter claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in court;

¶39

(c)an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that court.”

¶40

The learned counsel for the appellant further

¶41

contended that the claim petition to be filed within two years

¶42

and the claimant has not assigned any reason for delay in filing

¶43

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:33609 MFA No. 668 of 2016

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

the claim petition. Therefore, the application filed by the claimant itself is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent-claimant stated that at the time of filing of the claim petition as per section 3 of EC Act, 1953, if any personal injury is caused to the employee by an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, the employer shall be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act. But, they failed to file the same and not at all deposited the amount at the time of filing of the appeal.

¶48

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the both sides.

¶49

On perusal of the records, it is clear that the appellant – insurance company has deposited the entire amount at the time of filing of the appeal. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the insurance company has not deposited the amount at the time of filing of the appeal, cannot be accepted.

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:33609 MFA No. 668 of 2016

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Perusal of the records shows that the petitionerclaimant was a conductor and she was on duty on 03.04.2009. Due to negligence of the driver of the bus, she sustained fracture of left hand wrist and amputation of four fingers. Injuries are permanent in nature. It required operation and it was done by fixing K-wire. She was discharged on 29.04.2009 and reviewed on 09.08.2013 and it was observed that there is disability of 47%, i.e. thumb 25%, index 15%, middle 5% and ring 3%.

¶53

Though the petitioner-claimant met with an accident on 03.04.2009 itself, she kept quiet for 5 years without filing a claim petition, and she filed claim petition on 02.08.2014. According to her admission, she has not filed any delay condonation application or not assigned any reasons for the delay. It cannot be said that petitioner-claimant is an illiterate. She was working as a conductor and she knows that, when she met with an accident, she is entitled for compensation. She was hospitalised only for a shorter period. She has not given an explanation for non-filing of the claim for a period of 5 years. Moreover, she is continuing in the same job and there is no loss

¶54

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:33609 MFA No. 668 of 2016

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

of employment to her due to the injuries sustained in the accident. Without considering all the aspects, the Tribunal granted compensation, and also interest from the date of the accident, which is not on proper appreciation of facts. Therefore, this Court finds that this order is of the Tribunal is patently erroneous and is liable to be set aside.

¶58

In the result, this appeal is allowed by setting aside the order dated 08.05.2015 passed by the IX Additional Small Causes and Additional MACT, Bengaluru, in ECA No.280 of 2014.

¶59

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶60

CS CT: NR; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Umadevi K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Umadevi K

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

Sri Syed Imran Vs Smt Bibi Fathima Zehra

Manjunatha H C Vs Buden Sab

Smt. Padma Bohara Vs the Managing Director

Monika M a Vs Nithan G K.

Smt. Supriya B S Vs Sri Prajwal Kushalappa @ Dempsy

Sri Mahendra E Vs Smt. Pushpa S