Karnataka High Court
Ananda. K vs Narayana Murthy on 4 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
MFA No. 1689 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1689 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
ANANDA. K
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH,
R/O. ANNENAHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI, OORUKERE,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. HARISH N.R., ADVOCATE FOR;
Digitally
signed by SRI.PATEL D KAREGOWDA.,ADVOCATE)
JAI JYOTHI J AND:
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF 1. NARAYANA MURTHY
KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O. LATE RANGAPPA,
R/O. ANNENAHALLI,
OORUKERE POST,
KASABA HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT.
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
MFA No. 1689 of 2017
G.E. PLAZA, AIR PORT ROAD,
YERAWAD, PUNE-411 006,
BRANCH OFFICE,
SERVICE ADDRESS:
MANAGER,
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NEXT TO MAHAVEER JAIN COLLEGE,
NEW MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 047.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. L. DAYANANDA .,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. H.R. RENUKA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2016 PASSED
IN ECA.NO.59/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMAKURU,
DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
MFA No. 1689 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the workman aggrieved by
the dismissal of the order passed in ECA No.59/2014,
dated 22.03.2016 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge
And MACT, Tumkur.
2. The claim petition is filed under Section-10 of
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking
compensation. The case is that the claimant was working
as a Cleaner and the first respondent was the owner of the
vehicle and during the course of employment the claimant
had sustained injuries. On 03.07.2009 the lorry was
carrying maida and rava from Hosakote to Tumkur. When
the lorry was stopped in front of Tumkur Traders,
Mandipet, Tumkur for unloading the goods from the said
lorry as per the direction of the first respondent, the driver
of the lorry and the claimant were correcting the tarpal on
the load of the lorry and due to heavy rains, the claimant
unexpectedly fell down on the road and sustained grievous
injuries. He was admitted to the Government Hospital,
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
Tumkur as inpatient for eight days and was treated for the
fracture injury.
3. The court below considering Exhibit-R1 copy of
the MLC register wherein it was mentioned that the
claimant was under intoxication and the court below
observed that as per Section-3 of the Workmen
Compensation Act 1923 (for brevity 'WC Act) since the
claimant was under the influence of the alcohol he was not
entitled for compensation and accordingly dismissed the
claim petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant
submits that the court below without any basis has held
that Section-3(1)(b) of WC Act was attracted. It is further
submitted that as per the MLC Extract there was breath
smell of alcohol. Except that nothing else has been stated
and basing on that the accident cannot be attributed to
consumption of alcohol. he submits that the burden lies on
the insurance company to prove that the accident had
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
taken place because the claimant had consumed alcohol
and unless and until that is satisfied the insurance
company cannot have the benefit of Section-3(1)(b)(i) of
WC Act. He submits that the insurance company has
marked the 161 Cr.P.C. statements of the owner and the
driver of the vehicle wherein they have categorically stated
that it is by way of accident that he sustained injuries and
not because of consuming alcohol.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent -
insurance company submits that the MLC extract clearly
shows that the claimant was under the influence of the
alcohol and Section-3(1)(b)(i) of WC Act is attracted, the
employer is not liable to pay the compensation. It is
submitted that the statement under Section-161 of the
Cr.P.C has no evidentiary value. He further submits that it
is for the workman to prove by enclosing necessary
evidence that it was an accident. As the medical records
are against the workman he submits that the court below
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
had rightly dismissed the petition filed under the
Workmen's Compensation Act.
6. Having heard the learned counsel on either
side, perused the entire material on record. In this case
before going into the merits of the matter it is appropriate
to have a look at Section-3(1)(a) and (b) of the WC Act,
which reads as follows:
"3. Employer's liability for compensation -
(1) If personal injury is caused to a
workman by accident arising out of and in
the course of his employment, his employer
shall be liable to pay compensation in
accordance with the provisions of this
chapter:
Provided that the employer shall not be so
liable -
(a) in respect of any injury which does not
result in the total or partial disablement of
the workman for a period exceeding three
days;
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
(b) in respect of any [injury, not resulting
in death, caused by] an accident which is
directly attributable to -
(i) the workman having been at the time
thereof under the influence of drink or
drugs, or
(ii) the willful disobedience of the workman
to an order expressly given, or to a rule
expressly framed, for the purpose of
securing the safety of workman, or
(iii) the willful removal or disregard by the
workman of any safety guard or other
device which he knew to have been
provided for the purpose of securing the
safety of workman."
7. A plain reading of the aforesaid section makes it
clear that if the accident is directly attributable to the
employee that he was under the influence of drink or
drugs, then the employer is not liable to pay the
compensation. In this case according to the workman who
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
was a cleaner of the lorry, while he and the driver of the
lorry were correcting the tarpal on the load of the lorry fell
down and sustained injuries. This Court finds force in the
arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that
just because he consumed alcohol that cannot be a ground
to disentitle him from paying the compensation, but the
accident has to be attributed to the consumption of the
alcohol. Apart from this the medical records do not say
that the claimant was under the influence of the alcohol
and according to the claimant when they have given a
statement under Section-161 of Crpc which was filed along
with this case, he ought to have examined the owner and
the driver to substantiate his case, to which the workman
failed to do. The claimant has not examined anyone except
examining himself as PW-1.
8. In these circumstance, this Court deems it
appropriate to set-aside the award the order passed in
ECA No.59/2014, dated 22.03.2016 by the II Additional
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
Senior Civil Judge And MACT, Tumkur for fresh
consideration.
9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the
matter is remanded to the court below for fresh
consideration:
i) Without further notice, the parties shall appear
before the court below on 18.12.2023 and
within three months from 18.12.2023 the court
below shall pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law.
ii) The parties are at liberty to adduced further
evidence.
iii) All the contentions of both the parties are left
open.
iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:43734
iii) No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JJ
