Karnataka High Court
Smt Laxmi W/O Late Goutam And Ors vs Mahadappa S/O Hanamanthrao And Anr on 25 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
MFA No. 200125 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200125/2021(ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAXMI W/O LATE GOUTAM,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. NEHA D/O LATE GOUTAM
AGE: 12 YEARS, MINOR STUDENT,
3. DEEPIKA D/O LATE GOUTAM,
AGE: 09 YEARS, MINOR,
BOTH MINORS U/G THEIR MOTHER
Digitally signed
by LAXMI APPELLANT NO.1.
LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. ARJUN S/O LATE JOTEPPA,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR,
5. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O ARJUN,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
ALL R/O BACHEPALLI,
TQ. AURAD-B,
DIST. BIDAR-585 326.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
MFA No. 200125 of 2021
AND:
1. MAHADAPPA S/O HANAMANTHRAO,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MAJGE NAGAR, LATUR,
DIST. LATUR (MS),
NOW R/O VILLAGE LODHA, TQ. AURAD-B,
DIST. BIDAR-585 326.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
NEAR AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, MAIN ROAD,
BIDAR-585 401.
(VIDE 3 POLICY NO.240602/31/02/00005498,
VALID FROM 13-10-11 TO 12-10-12).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S. ASPALLI, ADV. FOR R2;
R1-V/O. DTD.13.12.2022 NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
05.03.2018 PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
AT AURAD-B IN ECA NO.11/2014.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 12.02.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT', THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
MFA No. 200125 of 2021
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. JOSHI)
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of dismissal in
ECA No.11/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., and
Commissioner under the Employee's Compensation Act,
Aurad-B, (for short 'the Commissioner'), the petitioners are
before this Court in appeal.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the
deceased Goutam was a driver working under employment of
respondent No.1. He was driving a Car No.MH-04/CD-7235
from Ladha Village to Bachepalli Village, along with
respondent No.1 on 07.04.2012, but near Bidar, there was a
puncture and therefore, respondent No.1 instructed the
deceased Goutam to get the vehicle repaired and come to
Bachepalli and he left to Bachepalli in a bus. After repairing
the Car, Gautam was driving the same towards Bachepalli
and at about 9.30 p.m., near Dhupathmahagaon Village, he
was blinded by focusing light of an on coming lorry and he
lost control over the Car. When he took towards left to avoid
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
the collision, the vehicle turned turtle by the side of the road.
He was severely injured and shifted to General Hospital,
Bidar, and thereafter, to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta,
Hyderabad, on the next day. He was again shifted to
Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, on 11.04.2012
and he succumbed to the injures on the same day. The
Panjagutta Police Station registered the case in Crime
No.306/2012 on 11.04.2012 and transferred the same to
Santapura Police Station, on the ground of jurisdiction.
Accordingly, Santapura Police Station registered the case in
Crime No.24/2012 on 04.05.2012. The petitioners, who are
the wife, children and parents of the deceased, filed the
petition for compensation under Section 10 of the
Employees' Compensation Act (for short 'E.C. Act'). They
contended that the deceased was aged 30 years, earning a
salary of Rs.6,000/- per month with daily bata of Rs.150/-
and was under the employment of respondent No.1. The Car
was insured with respondent No.2, therefore, they are
entitled for compensation from respondent Nos.1 and 2.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
3. On being issued with the notice, respondent No.1
appeared and filed the written statement admitting that the
deceased Goutam was under his employment and that the
Car had met with an accident on 07.04.2012 while the
deceased was driving the same from Bidar to Bachepalli. He
also admitted that Goutam died due to the injuries suffered
in the accident. He also admitted that the deceased was
paid Rs.6,000/- per month and daily bata of Rs.150/-.
4. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company filed
written statement contending that there is no relationship of
employer and employee between deceased and respondent
No.1 and denied the accident itself. It also denied the age,
income and occupation of the deceased and alleged that
there is delay in filing the complaint and therefore, it being a
cooked-up case, liable to be dismissed. Inter alia, it also
contended that the deceased was not having Driving License
and therefore, there were violation of terms and conditions
of the policy.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
5. On the basis of the above contentions, the
Commissioner framed appropriate issues and the evidence
was led. The petitioner No.1 was examined as PW1 and
Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. No evidence was led on behalf
of the respondents.
6. After hearing the arguments, the Commissioner
came to the conclusion that the petitioners have failed to
prove that the deceased had met with the accident on
07.04.2012 and was under the employment of respondent
No.1 and as such, dismissed the petition.
7. On issuance of notice pending admission,
respondent No.1 did not appear, but respondent No.2
appeared through its counsel.
8. Heard arguments by both the sides and perused
the material available on record.
9. The substantial question of law that arises for
consideration in this appeal is as below:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
Whether the learned Commissioner is
justified in holding that the petitioners have
not proved that the deceased Goutam died
due to the accidental injuries while he was
in employment under respondent No.1,
even though the Police papers show that
the deceased was admitted to the hospitals
at Hyderabad due to the injuries sustained
in the accident?
10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has
filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking to
produce two documents to substantiate his contention that
the deceased was first taken to the Government BRIMS
Hospital at Bidar.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
would contend that the Ex.P2 is the letter written by
Inspector of Panjagutta Police Station to the SHO of
Santhapura Police Station, which depicts that the deceased
was first taken to BRIMS Hospital and then he was taken to
NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, on 08.04.2012. Then, he was
shifted to Yadhoda Hospital, where he succumbed to death
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
on 11.04.2012. This chain of hospitalization of the deceased
being borne out of the records, the learned Commissioner
has erred in holding that what transpired between
07.04.2012 and 11.04.2012 was not placed on record. In
addition to it, it is submitted that Ex.P12, and Ex.P13
corroborate with Ex.P2 and all these documents refer to the
road traffic accident and the medico legal case being
registered in the hospitals. He also submits that the police
papers and panchnama conducted by Panjagutta Police as
per Exs.P9 and P10 also show that the accident had occurred
on 07.04.2012. The death summery of Yashoda Hospital,
which is at Ex.P12 narrates the history and therefore, there
was no reason for the learned Commissioner to disbelieve
these documents. It is contended that the cross-
examination of PW1 show that all required information had
been elicited by the respondents, but even then, the learned
Commissioner erred in dismissing the petition.
12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 - Insurance Company would contend that
the Ex.P3 is the FIR registered by Panjagutta Police on
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
11.04.2012. What transpired between 07.04.2012 to
11.04.2012 is not forthcoming in any of the documents and
therefore, the version of the petitioners is unbelievable. All
other documents which show the events between
07.04.2012 and 11.04.2012 originate subsequent to
11.04.2012 and therefore, they are not of any relevance or
reliance. He further contended that the complaint no where
states that the deceased was the driver of the Car. Even if it
is accepted that he is a driver, except the written statement
of respondent No.1, there is nothing on record to show the
relationship of employee and employer. Therefore, he
defends the impugned judgment.
13. Insofar, the application under Order 41 Rule 27 is
concerned, it is submitted that the veracity of the additional
documents are to be tested and therefore, respondent No.2
should be given an opportunity to test the same by
subjecting the witnesses to the cross-examination.
14. Before going into the merits, it is necessary to
consider the application in I.A. No.2/2021 filed under Order
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
41 Rule 27 of CPC. It is pertinent to note that objections are
not filed by the respondents to this application. Evidently
these documents are a letter issued by the District Surgeon
and Medical Superintendent of BRIMS Hospital, Bidar,
addressed to petitioner No.1 and the medical records/case-
sheet and OPD Slip dated 07.04.2012 of deceased Goutam.
Evidently, these documents were obtained by the petitioners
on 25.03.2019, subsequent to the impugned judgment of the
learned Commissioner.
15. This Court is inclined to allow the application,
since these documents lend support to the remaining
documents, which are placed and marked before the learned
Commissioner. Moreover, these records were kept by the
BRIMS Hospital, Bidar, and are sent to the petitioners
through the District Surgeon/Medical Superintendent.
Therefore, these documents are of importance in order to
ascertain the correctness of the contentions of the
petitioners. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
the case of Union of India Vs Ibrahim Uddin1 the
documents which are essential for an effective adjudication
of the lis can be allowed to be produced under Order 41 Rule
27 of CPC. Hence, this Court favours allowing the said
application, for the reasons that may be found in the
following paragraphs.
16. The perusal of the documents produced by the
petitioners shows that initially the case was the registered by
Panjagutta Police on 11.04.2012 on the basis of information
given by one Rahul, who was the brother of the deceased.
The said FIR was transferred to Santhapura Police Station on
17.04.2012 as per the communication at Ex.P2 by the A.S.I.
of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad. The said FIR was
received by Santhapurr Police Station on 04.05.2012 and
was registered in Crime No.24/2012. In Ex.P2, it is a stated
that, Rahul had informed in his complaint to Panjagutta
Police that accident has occurred on 07.04.2012 involving
the Car bearing MH-04-CD/7235 and the deceased Goutam
was taken to Bidar Government Hospital. Then on
(2012) 8 SCC 148
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
08.04.2012, he was the shifted to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta
Hyderabad. Thereafter, on 10.04.2012 at 12.00 at the
midnight he was shifted to Yeshodha Hospital Somajiguda,
Hyderabad. But he succumbed to the injuries at 04.00 a.m.
on 11.04.2012. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer has
visited Yeshodha Hospital, shifted the body to Gandhi
Hospital for inquest. He also conducted the inquest in the
presence of two witnesses and recorded their statements,
which had corroborated the contents of the FIR. Then the
body was subjected to autopsy and handed over to the
relatives of the deceased. This narration in Ex.P2 needs to
be corroborated.
17. The death summery of deceased Goutam issued
by Yeshodha Hospital Hyderabad, produced at Ex.P12 shows
the history as below:
"This 35 years old male admitted with
alleged history of RTA on 7/4/2012-
sustained fracture right femur, was shifted
to NIMS for further management, where he
suddenly became un responsive and was
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
intubated and manually ventilated since
10/4/2012 after later shifted to Yeshodha
Somajiguda for further management".
18. The Hospital Authorities suspected sever
hypovolemic shock and fat embolism as cause of death.
These documents were obtained by the Investigating Officer
of Santhapur Police Station and thereafter, completed the
investigation and filed an abate summery report.
19. The documents sought to be produced by the
petitioners under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC show that when
the deceased Goutam was initially taken to the Government
Hospital, Bidar, they had registered a Medico Legal Case at
11:34:59 p.m. on 07.04.2012. It is mentioned that there
was an injury to right thigh and pelvic region and the
deceased was discharged against medical advice. This
document coupled with OPD slip show that the Hospital
Authorities had registered Medico Legal Case immediately
after the accident. The history is shown as Slippage of Car
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
TATA Indica at about 9.45 p.m., near Dhupathmahagaon
Village.
20. The cross-examination of PW1 shows that there
are certain suggestions by respondent No.2 that respondent
No.1 Madappa is the owner of the Car and he was from
Ladha Village and he had asked the deceased to bring the
Car to Bachepalli Village as the Car had punctured near
Dhupathamahagaon Cross. The PW1 has stated that
Madappa was also in the said Car and after the Car suffered
puncture, the owner went to Bacheppalli Village in a Bus.
These suggestions show that respondent No.2 had the
knowledge of the manner in which the accident occurred.
21. The above evidence shows that, the accident has
occurred on 07.04.2012 at about 09:45 p.m., and the
deceased was shifted to the Hospital at about 11:30 p.m.
Then he was shifted to Government BRIMS Hospital at Bidar
and thereafter he was shifted NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad on
08.04.2012 and again on 10.04.2012 in the midnight he was
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
the shifted to Yeshodha Hospital, where he died within 4
hours at about 4:00 a.m. Obviously, he was on ventilation.
This shows the continuity of the treatment from 07.04.2012
to 11.04.2012 and is available in the records produced
before the Commissioner. In that view of the matter, the
contention that there is no material to show what transpired
between 07.04.2012 to 11.04.2012 is not available cannot
be accepted. It is evident that the brother of the deceased
was all along engaged in attending to the injuries to the
deceased. Of course the complaint at Ex.P2 does not
mention that the deceased was driver of the car. But the
cross-examination of PW1 elicits the same. Therefore, the
contentions of respondent No.2- Insurance Company cannot
be accepted.
22. The Commissioner has clearly erred in holding
that the involvement of the alleged Car in the accident is not
proved. The delay in lodging the complaint has been
explained, but the same was not properly appreciated by the
Commissioner. In the result, the substantial question of law
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
framed by this Court deserves to the answered in the
negative.
23. The Commissioner holds that the wages of the
deceased Goutam was Rs.6,000/- per month with bata of
Rs.150/- per day. The notification issued by the Government
of India under Section 4(1-B) of E.C. Act, holds the wages at
Rs.8,000/- per month. The evidence shows that the
deceased was aged 35 years as per the medical records.
Therefore, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of
Rs.8,000/- x 50% x 197.06 = 7,88,240/-. In addition to it a
sum of Rs.5000/- is to be awarded as funeral expenses.
Hence the petitioners are entitled sum of Rs.7,93,240/- as
compensation.
24. In the result, the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part awarding the
compensation of Rs.7,93,240/- along with
interest rate of 12% per annum from the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293
date of expiry of 30 days from 07.04.2012 till
the payment before the Commissioner.
ii) The impugned judgment dated 05.03.2018
passed in ECA No.11/2014 by the
Commissioner is hereby set aside.
iii) Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation amount
within six weeks from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
(C.M. JOSHI)
JUDGE
SBS
CT: AK
