[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager The Oriental vs Ambika And Ors on 31 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:794
MFA No. 202293 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200300 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202293 OF 2022 (ECA)
C/W
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200300 OF 2023
IN MFA No. 202293/2022:
BETWEEN:
1. AMBIKA W/O KUMAR,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: H H WORK,
R/O 3/349, ANNA NAGAR,
NAYACHANKOTTARY POST. ANDHIHALLI,
KRISHANPURAM DHARMAPURI,
TAMIL NADU- 626 142.
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE 2. SAKTHIVEL S/O KUMAR,
Location: HIGH AGE:16 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
COURT OF APPELLANT NO.2 IS MINORS,
KARNATAKA
R/BY HIS NEXT FRIEND / MOTEHR,
MINOR GUARDIAN / MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1,
SMT. AMBIKA W/O KUMAR,
R/O. ANDHIHALLI, KRISHNAPURAM,
DHARAMAPURI,
TAMIL NADU- 626 142
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:794
MFA No. 202293 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200300 of 2023
HC-KAR
1. SRI S. SUBRAMANIYAM S/O SEMBANAN
AGE:48 YEARS OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 264A, OLAIYAKANAVAKAR, CHENNAMPATTY,
ILLIPILLI POST. TAMIL NADU- 638 501,
(OWNER OF LORRY REG NO.TN-52/H-1744).
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
S. S. FRONT ROAD, BIDARI COMPLEX,
VIJAYAPURA-586 101,
(POLICY NO. 454302/31/2019/7177,
PERIOD 19.11.2018 TO 18.11.2019
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DTD.06.12.2022 NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF ECA ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 30.03.2022 PASSED BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION AT VIJAYAPURA, IN ECA NO.29/2019.
IN MFA NO. 200300/2023:
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
S.S.FRONT ROAD, BIDARI COMPLEX,
VIJAYAPURA-585 601,
PRESENTLY REPRESENTED BY,
DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
N.G. COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR,
OPP. MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA,
MAIN ROAD,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:794
MFA No. 202293 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200300 of 2023
HC-KAR
KALABURAGI-585 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. AMBIKA W/O KUMAR,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O 3/349, ANNA NAGAR,
NAYACKANKOTTAY,
POST. ANDIHALLI KRISHNAPURAM DHARMAPURI
TAMIL NADU-627 011.
2. SUSHANTHIKA D/O KUMAR,
AGE: 21 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT.
3. SAKTHIVEL S/O KUMAR,
AGE: 17 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
PETITIONERS NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS,
R/BY HIS NEXT FRIEND/MOTHER,
RESPONDENT NO.1,
SMT. AMBIKA W/O KUMAR,
R/O ANDHIHALLI, KRISHNAPURAM,
DHARMAPURI,
TAMIL NADU-627 011.
4. SRI S. SUBRAMANIYAM S/O SEMBANAN,
AGE:49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O 264A, OLAIYAKANAVAKAR CHENNAMPATTY,
ILLIPILLI POST ANTHIYUR TK. ERODE,
DIST. TAMIL NADU-638 501
OWNER OF LORRY REG.NO.TN.52/H-1744.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI BASAVARAJ R. MATH, ADVOCATE R1 TO R3;
R3 IS MINOR UNDER GUARDIAN OF R1;
R4 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO A) CALL
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:794
MFA No. 202293 of 2022
C/W MFA No. 200300 of 2023
HC-KAR
FOR THE RECORDS IN ECA NO.29/2019 ON THE FILE OF
THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER
FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AT VIJAYAPURA DATED
30.03.2022.B) SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 30.03.2022 IN ECA NO.29/2016 PASSED BY THE III
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AT VIJAYAPURA ALLOWING
THE APPEAL.
THESE APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
2. These appeals are arising out of the Judgment
and order dated 30.03.2022 passed in E.C.A.No.29/2019 on
the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Vijayapura (for
short 'the learned Commissioner'), awarding compensation
to the claimants.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
referred to as per their ranking before the learned
Commissioner.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:794
HC-KAR
4. The respondent-Insurance company has filed MFA
No.200300/2023 challenging the liability, and MFA
No.202293/2022 is filed by the claimants seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
5. It is the case of the claimants that, the claimant
No.1 is the wife of the deceased. It is stated that, on
09.02.2019 the deceased while working as a cleaner in the
lorry belonging to the respondent No.1 has loaded cement at
Eragundla and thereafter came over to Vijayapura for
unloading the same and thereafter, unloading was made
partly and as such, the vehicle in question was parked near
Venkatesh Transport Company, at Vijayapura. In the
meanwhile, on account of cardiac arrest, the husband of the
claimant No.1 died. Hence, the claimants preferred
E.C.A.No.29/2019 before the learned Commissioner.
6. On service of notice, the respondents entered
appearance and contested the matter on merits.
7. In order to prove their case, the claimant No.1
was examined as P.W.1 and got marked six documents as
NC: 2026:KHC-K:794
HC-KAR
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. No oral or documentary evidence was led
by the respondents.
8. The learned Commissioner vide Judgment and
order dated 30.03.2022 awarded compensation of
Rs.7,51,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% and
being aggrieved by the same, these appeals are filed.l
9. Sri. Uday P. Hongutikar, learned counsel
appearing for the Insurance company argued that, the
claimants have failed to prove the relationship of employer
and employee of the deceased with the respondent No.1 and
therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
10. Per contra, Sri. Basavaraj R. Math, learned
counsel appearing for the claimants sought to justify the
impugned award passed by the learned Commissioner as to
the liability, however, argued for enhancement of the
compensation.
11. Having taken note of the submission made by the
learned counsel for the parties, on careful consideration of
NC: 2026:KHC-K:794
HC-KAR
the finding recorded by the learned Commissioner, it is not in
dispute as to the death of the husband of the claimant No.1
on 13.02.2019, during the course of employment. In order to
disprove the employment undisputably, the Insurance
company has not led oral or documentary evidence before
the learned Commissioner. Taking into consideration, the
finding recorded by the learned Commissioner, as per Issue
Nos.1 and 2, I am of the view that, the death of the husband
of the claimant No.1 on account the cardiac arrest has
happened during the course of the employment, and as
such, the claimants are entitled for compensation.
12. Insofar as the award of compensation is
concerned, the Commissioner has rightly applied the relevant
factor of 181.37 by taking the age of the deceased as 41 and
the income of Rs.8,000/- per month is taken as per Section 4
of the Act, is concerned.
13. In that view of the matter, I find that no
enhancement is required to be made in the appeal filed by
the claimants.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:794
HC-KAR
14. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Both appeals are dismissed;
(ii) The amount in deposit be transmitted to
the learned Commissioner, forthwith.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SVH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32
CT:PK
