The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12874 MFA No. 8908 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8908 OF 2018 (WC) BETWEEN: …APPELLANT IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE AT IFFCO SADANC-1 DISTRICT CENTER, SAKETH, NEW DELHI - 17 NOW REPRESENTED BY LEGAL MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GIC LTD., CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, SRI SHANTHI TOWERS, 5TH FLOOR, NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURBANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 043. (BY SRI. PRADEEP B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ARJUNAIAH, S/O BHEEMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEAS, 2. MASTHAMMA W/O ARJUNAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O MASTHAIAHNA PALYA, SHETTIKERE HOBLI, C.N. HALLI TALUK. 3. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA, W/O GANGADHAR, D/O ARJUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O KADABA MAJURAE, KADE KODI, KADABA HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK - 572 201. 4. S.B. SHIVAPRASAD, S/O B. BASAVANNA, Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12874 MFA No. 8908 of 2018 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, NO.256, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, TIPTUR - 572 218.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKARA K.A, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M.B. RYAKHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19/07/2018, PASSED IN ECA NO.1/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., & XIX MACT, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.12,47,880/- WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 6% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE PETITION TILL REALIZATION OF THE AWARD AMOUNT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in E.C.A.No.1/2017 dated 19.07.2018 by the XIX MACT, Chikkanayakanahalli, the Insurance Company is before this Court. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation under Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. It is the case that the deceased Lokesh is a workman within the meaning of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 and he was working as a loader and unloader in the tractor of the first respondent on salary of Rs.500/- per day on daily wages. That on 22.04.2016 at about 7.25 p.m., the deceased Lokesh had been to the side work - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12874 MFA No. 8908 of 2018 under respondent No.1 in the said tractor. The driver of the said tractor has driven the same with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, it was capsized to the road side drain and the deceased fell under the said tractor and sustained injuries and died on the spot. It is the case of the Insurance Company that in the FIR, it is shown that he is travelling on the mudguard of the tractor. When that is the case, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. The Labour Court had negatived the said contention of the Insurance Company and held that as per the charge sheet, the deceased was travelling in the trailer as a loader and unloader and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation. The Labour Court had taken the salary of the deceased at Rs.9,000/- and Rs.3,000/- is deducted towards his personal expenses and Rs.6,000/- has taken as salary multiplied by the factor 207.98, the Labour Court had granted an amount of Rs.12,47,880/- 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / Insurance Company submits that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12874 MFA No. 8908 of 2018 Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors.1 That if a particular document is relied upon by both the parties, the Court has to looked into the entire document but not the part of it. It is submitted that the Court without any basis, looking at the FIR had fixed the liability on the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also submitted that under the provisions of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, in case of death, 50% of the salary has to be deducted and there should be multiplied by the factor. He submits that the accident had taken place on 22.04.2016 and as per the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, the salary is Rs.8,000/-. He submits that even the compensation that is awarded by the Labour Court is on the higher side. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the employer submits that the Labour Court had rightly fixed the liability on the Insurance Company and there no grounds to interfere with the well considered judgment and award passed by the Court. 1 (2007)13 SCC 476 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12874 MFA No. 8908 of 2018 4. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that already the entire amount is withdrawn by the claimants and the calculation that is arrived at by the Labour Court is basing on the evidence and as per law and no interference is call for from this Court. 5. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. First coming to the liability, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the FIR states that the deceased was travelling on the mudguard, once he is travelling on the mudguard, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. After the FIR is filed, the police have conducted a full fledged investigation and a charge sheet is filed and as per the charge sheet, the deceased was travelling in the trailer but not on the mudguard. The contention that the Court has to look at the FIR and it cannot discard the said submission of the learned counsel for Insurance Company has no legs to stand. FIR is not an encyclopaedia where all the things need to be stated. It is a first information given to the police. Thereafter, the police will conduct a full fledged investigation and will file a charge sheet and as per the charge sheet, he was travelling in the trailer. If - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12874 MFA No. 8908 of 2018 the Insurance Company has adduced any other evidence to show that at the relevant point of time that the deceased was travelling on the mudguard then the Court would have considered. Admittedly in this case, except examining the Officer of the Insurance Company, no other evidence is adduced. In that view of the mater, this court finds that the finding of the Labour Court fixing the liability on the Insurance Company is a well considered one and no interference is called for from this Court. 6. Then coming to the quantum, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the salary at the relevant point of time, the minimum wages as per the notification is at Rs.8,000/- and 50% has to be deducted then it comes to Rs.4,000/-. The relevant factor is '207.98' and the amount would come to Rs.8,31,920/-, which the Insurance Company is liable to pay. 7. It is submitted that already the claimants have withdrawn the amount. The Insurance Company is at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amounts. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12874 MFA No. 8908 of 2018 i) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.12,47,880/- to Rs.8,31,920/-. The Insurance Company is liable to pay the said amount. ii) The Insurance Company is at liberty to initiate the recovery proceedings. iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Labour Court, along with certified copy of the judgment passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iv) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK