Karnataka High Court
Hdfc Ergo Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd vs Zaibunnisa And Ors on 27 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:563
MFA No. 200048 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200048 OF 2020 (WC)
BETWEEN:
HDFC ERGO GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
6TH FLOOR, LEELA BUSINESS PARK,
ANDHERI-KURLA ROAD,
ANDHERI (EAST) MUMBAI-400 059
(NOW REPRESENTING BY
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
VIDYA NAGAR HUBLI).
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
1. ZAIBUNNISA W/O MOHABOOB,
signed by
LUCYGRACE
LUCYGRACE Date:
U.I. HASAN, AGE: 54 YEARS,
2025.01.30
11:08:34 -
0800
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. MEHEBOOB U.I. HASSAN
S/O ABDUL HAMEED,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
BOTH R/O H.NO.7-929/2,
NEAR HAJ COMMITTEE, NAYAMOHALLA,
KALABURAGI-585 101.
3. M/S. ELIXIR ENGINEERING PVT. LTD.,
415-517, MASTER MIND IV,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:563
MFA No. 200048 of 2020
ROYAL PALMS MAYUR, ARREY COLONY,
GOREGAON (EAST), MUMBAI.
4. M/S. SOLAPUR BIO ENERGY SYSTEMS PVT. LTD.,
KACHARA DEPOT, TULJAPUR ROAD,
SOLAPUR-413 002,
HAVING ITS REGISTERED ADDRESS AT
501, CEMTRIUM PLOT NO.27,
SECTOR 15CBD, BELAPUR,
NAVI MUMBAI-416 614.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRUPA SAGAR PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. DEEPAK KUMAR, ADV. FOR R3;
SRI. ANAND V. TURE, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE
APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 16.09.2019 IN ECA NO.190/2014 PASSED BY
THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR
EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION AT KALABURAGI.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)
By the consent of both the counsel, the matter is
taken up for final disposal, though it is slated for
admission.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:563
This appeal is directed against the judgment and
award dated 16.09.2019 passed in ECA No.190/2014 by
the learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner
for Employee's Compensation, Kalaburagi (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Commissioner' for short).
2. By the impugned judgment, the Commissioner
has awarded a sum of Rs.8,61,120/- as compensation to
the petitioners together with interest at 12% p.a. and
directed the Insurance Company - respondent No.2 therein
to deposit the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the
Insurance Company is before this Court in appeal.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
the deceased employee was working under the respondent
No.4 - M/s. Solapur Bio Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. The said
M/s. Solapur Bio Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. had engaged
respondent No.3 - M/s. Elixir Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:563
contractor. The appellant - Insurance Company had
entered into contractual obligations under the policy with
respondent No.3 - M/s. Elixir Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the
compensation. However, this aspect is covered by a
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Steel
Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. vs National Union
Water Front Workers & Ors.1, wherein it is held that if
the contractor is a mere camouflage, the principal
employer is liable. In the case on hand, M/s. Elixir
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. was not a mere camouflage.
5. The second aspect contended is about the
ex gratia amount paid by respondent No.4 to the claimants
on account of death of the employee. Obviously, an
ex gratia payment by respondent No.4 do not come within
the contractual obligations of respondent No.3 with the
appellant. Therefore, this contention cannot be a
substantial question of law.
(2001) 7 SCC 1
NC: 2025:KHC-K:563
6. The third aspect is, weather the appellant is
liable to pay the interest as per the provisions of the
Employee's Compensation Act, 1923? This aspect is also
covered by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Harshadbhai
Amrutbhai Modhiya and Another2.
7. Therefore, by following the judgment in the
case of Harshadbhai Amrutbhai Modhiya supra, the
appellant is not liable to pay the interest part of the
compensation amount determined by the learned
Commissioner. Thus, to that extent, the appeal deserves
to be allowed.
8. Hence, the appeal is allowed in part and the
impugned judgment and award is modified by fastening
the interest portion on respondent No.3 - M/s. Elixir
Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Appeal is disposed off accordingly.
(2006) 5 SCC 192
NC: 2025:KHC-K:563
9. The amount in deposit before this Court is
ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
LG
