Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3065 OF 2020
(ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O LATE KANNAIAH
@ KANNAYYA
2. SRI. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O LATE KANNAIAH
@ KANNAYYA
3. KUM. K SUDHA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
D/O LATE KANNAIAH
@ KANNAYYA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT LAKKASANDRA
VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A.K.BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. V. HARI DAS
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O VELUSWAMY,
RESIDING AT NO.230,
LINGHI CHETTY STREET,
CHENNAI,TAMILNADU – 600001.
2. THE LEGAL MANAGER
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO LTD.,
NO.141, SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS,
TH RD
4 FLOOR, 3 MAIN EAST,
NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR,
BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION ACT PRAYING TO DIRECT THE INSURANCE
COMPANY TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF RS.14,50,000/- AS
PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY THE ORDER OF MACT &
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE (SCCH:3), VII ADDL. JUDGE AND
ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-03,
BANGALORE DATED 09.12.2019 PASSED IN ECA NO.75/2017,
WITH COST AND INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an
award passed under section 22 of the Employees Compensation
Act, 1923 dated 09.12.2019 in ECA No.75 passed by the VII
Addl. Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, MACT-3,
Bengaluru (hereinafter ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned
Award, it was held that the petitioners were held entitled for
compensation however, the petition against Respondent
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
No.2Insurance Company was dismissed by the learned Trial
Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased was
employed with Respondent No.1 as a driver of lorry bearing
No.TN-04-AC-7542. On 18.03.2017 at about 5.30 p.m. while
driving the said lorry from Hyderabad towards Bengaluru, near
Bagepalli Sales Tax check post, he stopped and parked the
lorry and stood on the footpath. At that time one unknown lorry
driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. The
deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to his
injuries on the way to the hospital. This led to the filing of the
present claim petition.
3. The matter was contested by Respondent No.2 who is the
Insurance Company of the vehicle which caused the accident.
However since Respondent No.1 Owner failed to appear, he was
proceeded as ex-parte.
4. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial
Court:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are
the LR’s /dependants of deceased Sri. Kannaiah @
Kannayya?
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased
Sri. Kannaiah @ Kannayya was the driver in Lorry
st
bearing reg. No.TN-04-AC-7542 belongs to 1
respondent on the date of accident?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased
Sri. Kannaiah @ Kannayya? Was died on
18.03.2017 during the course of his employment
st
under 1 respondent?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
5. What Order or Award?”
5. The learned Trial Court held that the deceased was
entitled to compensation. However, on the aspect of liability it
gave a finding that since the deceased had got down from the
vehicle and was standing on the footpath, the deceased was
not performing his duty as a driver of the vehicle and thus
exonerated the Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
challenge in the present appeal is only on this finding of
exoneration of the Insurance Company. He submits that the
deceased was performing his duty even while he was standing
on the footpath at the check post point. Reliance in this behalf
is placed on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
Court in Smt.Premila and Others vs. Shaliwan and
1
another .
7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 Insurance Company
on the other hand reiterates his contention that since the
deceased had stopped and was not in the vehicle at that time,
and the accident did not occur while performing his duty.
8. The issue that arises before this Court is whether
stopping of vehicle temporarily during the journey performed in
the course of employment would be such that the accident
would be deemed to be not caused during the use of the motor
vehicle.
9. The learned Trial Court has held that since the deceased
had got down from the vehicle and was standing on the
footpath and there was no use of vehicle belonging to the
respondent. Thus it was held that there was no proximity of
death concerning use of vehicle of the respondent.
10. A similar issue was dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Smt. Premila case, where it was held that where
1
2005 SCC OnLine Kar 197
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
a vehicle is stopped temporarily and the assignment was not
completed, the driver was on duty. The relevant extract is
below:
“6. I find no merit in the contention of the insurer.
It is a clear case of accident occurring in the use of
the motor vehicle and in the course of
employment. The facts categorically indicate that
the vehicle was stopped temporarily by the driver
for a short period for attending to calls of nature.
The assignment of work of transportation
from Hyderabad to Bidar was not yet
complete. The deceased driver was very
much on duty. The presence of the driver at
the accident spot is directly attributable to
the use of the motor vehicle. Otherwise,
there is no occasion for the deceased to be
present at the spot. The contention that the
driver should be actually driving the vehicle
at the time of the accident in order to attract
the terms of the policy is untenable. The policy
conditions lays down that the driver should have
been engaged for the purpose of driving. In the
instant case, temporary stoppage of the vehicle
and the driver getting out of the vehicle for a bona
fide reason does not result in suspension/cessation
of the legal contract of driving the vehicle for
which he is engaged until the vehicle reaches the
destination. It would make a difference in law,
if the driver completes his assignment of
transportation and is off the duty at the time
of accident. But, the facts of the case are
otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons stated
above, it is to be held that the accident
occurred in the use of the motor vehicle and
in the course of and out of employment to
attract the liability of the insurer as per the
terms of the statutory policy .”
[Emphasis Supplied]
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
11. This Court is unable to agree with the finding of the
learned Trial Court. It is not disputed that during the course of
his employment the deceased was required to drive the vehicle
from Hyderabad to Bengaluru and that the accident took place
during the time he was driving the vehicle. It is also not
disputed that the deceased stopped at the Sales Tax check post
which would obviously be a mandatory stop for all vehicles for
payment of road tax and thus was paying road tax for use of
vehicle of the owner. This also would be in the course of the
employment. The deceased was clearly not present on the road
for any other reason except for the fact that he was driving the
vehicle from Hyderabad to Bengaluru on behalf of the
respondent No.1 owner and during the course of his
employment. The deceased did not have any reason to be
present at the Sales Tax check post at except in furtherance of
his duty.
11. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following
directions:
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed
(iii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 09.12.2019
in ECA No.75 passed by the VII Addl. Judge and
ACMM, Court of Small Causes, MACT-3, Bengaluru is
modified to the extent that Insurance Company is held
to be jointly and severally liable with the Respondent
No.1 owner.
(iv) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the
Tribunal remains undisturbed.
(v) The Insurance Company shall make payment of the
amended amount withineight weeks from the date of
receipt of the judgment.
(vi) The Registry is also directed to draw the modified
Award accordingly.
(vii) Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment
to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
(viii) No order as to costs.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNTAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
SNB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 19 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3065 OF 2020
(ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAMAKKA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
W/O LATE KANNAIAH
@ KANNAYYA
2. SRI. MANJUNATHA
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
S/O LATE KANNAIAH
@ KANNAYYA
3. KUM. K SUDHA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
D/O LATE KANNAIAH
@ KANNAYYA
ALL ARE RESIDING AT LAKKASANDRA
VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
…APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A.K.BHAT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. V. HARI DAS
MAJOR IN AGE,
S/O VELUSWAMY,
RESIDING AT NO.230,
LINGHI CHETTY STREET,
CHENNAI,TAMILNADU – 600001.
2. THE LEGAL MANAGER
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
M/S IFFCO TOKIO GEN. INS. CO LTD.,
NO.141, SRI. SHANTHI TOWERS,
TH RD
4 FLOOR, 3 MAIN EAST,
NGEF LAYOUT, KASTURINAGAR,
BANGALORE.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.LINGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION ACT PRAYING TO DIRECT THE INSURANCE
COMPANY TO PAY THE COMPENSATION OF RS.14,50,000/- AS
PRAYED IN THE CLAIM PETITION BY THE ORDER OF MACT &
SMALL CAUSES JUDGE (SCCH:3), VII ADDL. JUDGE AND
ACMM, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER MACT-03,
BANGALORE DATED 09.12.2019 PASSED IN ECA NO.75/2017,
WITH COST AND INTEREST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge an
award passed under section 22 of the Employees Compensation
Act, 1923 dated 09.12.2019 in ECA No.75 passed by the VII
Addl. Judge and ACMM, Court of Small Causes, MACT-3,
Bengaluru (hereinafter ‘Impugned Award’). By the Impugned
Award, it was held that the petitioners were held entitled for
compensation however, the petition against Respondent
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
No.2Insurance Company was dismissed by the learned Trial
Court.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the deceased was
employed with Respondent No.1 as a driver of lorry bearing
No.TN-04-AC-7542. On 18.03.2017 at about 5.30 p.m. while
driving the said lorry from Hyderabad towards Bengaluru, near
Bagepalli Sales Tax check post, he stopped and parked the
lorry and stood on the footpath. At that time one unknown lorry
driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the deceased. The
deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to his
injuries on the way to the hospital. This led to the filing of the
present claim petition.
3. The matter was contested by Respondent No.2 who is the
Insurance Company of the vehicle which caused the accident.
However since Respondent No.1 Owner failed to appear, he was
proceeded as ex-parte.
4. The following issues were framed by the learned Trial
Court:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that they are
the LR’s /dependants of deceased Sri. Kannaiah @
Kannayya?
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased
Sri. Kannaiah @ Kannayya was the driver in Lorry
st
bearing reg. No.TN-04-AC-7542 belongs to 1
respondent on the date of accident?
3. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased
Sri. Kannaiah @ Kannayya? Was died on
18.03.2017 during the course of his employment
st
under 1 respondent?
4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for
compensation? If so, how much and from whom?
5. What Order or Award?”
5. The learned Trial Court held that the deceased was
entitled to compensation. However, on the aspect of liability it
gave a finding that since the deceased had got down from the
vehicle and was standing on the footpath, the deceased was
not performing his duty as a driver of the vehicle and thus
exonerated the Insurance Company.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
challenge in the present appeal is only on this finding of
exoneration of the Insurance Company. He submits that the
deceased was performing his duty even while he was standing
on the footpath at the check post point. Reliance in this behalf
is placed on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
Court in Smt.Premila and Others vs. Shaliwan and
1
another .
7. Learned counsel for Respondent No.2 Insurance Company
on the other hand reiterates his contention that since the
deceased had stopped and was not in the vehicle at that time,
and the accident did not occur while performing his duty.
8. The issue that arises before this Court is whether
stopping of vehicle temporarily during the journey performed in
the course of employment would be such that the accident
would be deemed to be not caused during the use of the motor
vehicle.
9. The learned Trial Court has held that since the deceased
had got down from the vehicle and was standing on the
footpath and there was no use of vehicle belonging to the
respondent. Thus it was held that there was no proximity of
death concerning use of vehicle of the respondent.
10. A similar issue was dealt with by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Smt. Premila case, where it was held that where
1
2005 SCC OnLine Kar 197
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
a vehicle is stopped temporarily and the assignment was not
completed, the driver was on duty. The relevant extract is
below:
“6. I find no merit in the contention of the insurer.
It is a clear case of accident occurring in the use of
the motor vehicle and in the course of
employment. The facts categorically indicate that
the vehicle was stopped temporarily by the driver
for a short period for attending to calls of nature.
The assignment of work of transportation
from Hyderabad to Bidar was not yet
complete. The deceased driver was very
much on duty. The presence of the driver at
the accident spot is directly attributable to
the use of the motor vehicle. Otherwise,
there is no occasion for the deceased to be
present at the spot. The contention that the
driver should be actually driving the vehicle
at the time of the accident in order to attract
the terms of the policy is untenable. The policy
conditions lays down that the driver should have
been engaged for the purpose of driving. In the
instant case, temporary stoppage of the vehicle
and the driver getting out of the vehicle for a bona
fide reason does not result in suspension/cessation
of the legal contract of driving the vehicle for
which he is engaged until the vehicle reaches the
destination. It would make a difference in law,
if the driver completes his assignment of
transportation and is off the duty at the time
of accident. But, the facts of the case are
otherwise. Therefore, for the reasons stated
above, it is to be held that the accident
occurred in the use of the motor vehicle and
in the course of and out of employment to
attract the liability of the insurer as per the
terms of the statutory policy .”
[Emphasis Supplied]
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
11. This Court is unable to agree with the finding of the
learned Trial Court. It is not disputed that during the course of
his employment the deceased was required to drive the vehicle
from Hyderabad to Bengaluru and that the accident took place
during the time he was driving the vehicle. It is also not
disputed that the deceased stopped at the Sales Tax check post
which would obviously be a mandatory stop for all vehicles for
payment of road tax and thus was paying road tax for use of
vehicle of the owner. This also would be in the course of the
employment. The deceased was clearly not present on the road
for any other reason except for the fact that he was driving the
vehicle from Hyderabad to Bengaluru on behalf of the
respondent No.1 owner and during the course of his
employment. The deceased did not have any reason to be
present at the Sales Tax check post at except in furtherance of
his duty.
11. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following
directions:
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed
(iii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 09.12.2019
in ECA No.75 passed by the VII Addl. Judge and
ACMM, Court of Small Causes, MACT-3, Bengaluru is
modified to the extent that Insurance Company is held
to be jointly and severally liable with the Respondent
No.1 owner.
(iv) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the
Tribunal remains undisturbed.
(v) The Insurance Company shall make payment of the
amended amount withineight weeks from the date of
receipt of the judgment.
(vi) The Registry is also directed to draw the modified
Award accordingly.
(vii) Registry is directed transmit a copy of this judgment
to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:2531
MFA No. 3065 of 2020
HC-KAR
(viii) No order as to costs.
Digitally signed by TARA
VITASTA GANJU
Location: HIGH COURT OF
KARNTAKA
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
SNB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14