[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The Managing Director vs H N Prakash on 23 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16310
M.F.A. No.6818/2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.6818/2018 (WC)
BETWEEN:
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
MY SUGAR CO LTD
MANDYA-571401.
Digitally signed 2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
by ARSHIFA MY SUGAR COMPANY LTD
BAHAR MANDYA-571401.
KHANAM ...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY MS. CHETHANA MANJUNATH, ADV., FOR
KARNATAKA MR. B.S. MANJUNATH, ADV.,)
AND:
H.N. PRAKASH
S/O LATE NAGARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/A HOUSE NO.39
2ND CROSS, SWARNASANDRA
MANDYA-571401.
...RESPONDENT
(BY MR. K.L. SREENIVASA, ADV.,)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE ECA
ACT, R/W SECTION 96 OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 08.03.2018, PASSED IN ECA NO.4/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION MANDYA,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,11,400/- WITH INTEREST
@ 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT TILL DEPOSIT.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16310
M.F.A. No.6818/2018
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the employer challenging the
judgment and award dated 08.03.2018 passed in
E.C.A.No.4/2016 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and the
Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Mandya (for
short, 'the Commissioner').
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for
final disposal.
3. Miss Chetana Manjunath, learned counsel appearing
for the appellants submits that the Commissioner has
committed a grave error in allowing the claim petition filed by
the son of the deceased workman by ignoring the fact that the
claim petition was filed after a period of 5 years from the date
of death of the workman. It is submitted that the claimant has
failed to prove that the death of the workman was having a
nexus with the injuries suffered by him in an accident caused
NC: 2026:KHC:16310
HC-KAR
during his employment on 02.08.2011 and also failed to
produce the post-mortem report which would have indicated
the cause of death. In the absence of any evidence, the
Commissioner proceeded to record the reason that the
workman suffered grievous injuries and thereafter, succumbed
to those injuries. It is further submitted that the claimant-son
of the deceased workman produced the payslip for the month
of July 2011 as Ex.P4, which indicates the higher salary drawn
by the workman and the payslip produced by the employer as
per Ex.R6 has been ignored by the Commissioner. Lastly, she
submits that the Commissioner has saddled the liability of
interest from the date of accident i.e. 02.08.2011, ignoring the
fact that the appeal is filed in the year 2016 which is more than
5 years from the date of accident and for the lapse of the
workman or his legal heir, the employer cannot be saddled the
liability to pay the interest. Hence, she seeks to allow the
appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.K.L.Sreenivasa, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent supports the impugned judgment
and award of the Commissioner and submits that the father of
NC: 2026:KHC:16310
HC-KAR
the claimant sustained severe burnt injuries during the course
of employment on 02.08.2011. He was provided treatment in
different hospitals. He was an inpatient for nearly 21 days.
Thereafter, he was treated as an outpatient and later he
succumbed to the said injuries on 17.11.2011. It is submitted
that an application for compensation was filed along with an
application seeking for condonation of delay and the delay was
condoned by the Commissioner by a separate order which was
not challenged by the appellant. It is further submitted that
the deceased workman had taken Guru Deeksha from his
pontiff whom he followed and as per the said Guru Deeksha, a
dead body cannot be dissected and cannot be taken for
autopsy. Hence, the deceased was not taken for autopsy and
the post-mortem report was not available. There is sufficient
material to prove that the death of the deceased has a nexus
with his employment. It is also submitted that just before the
accident, the salary drawn by the workman was Rs.14,534.62
as is evident from Exs.P4 and P5 which was produced before
the Commissioner and the same was accepted by the
Commissioner. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:16310
HC-KAR
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
and perused the material available on record.
6. The material on record indicates that the son of
deceased employee-Nagaraju has filed a claim petition seeking
compensation for the death of his father, who was working in
factory of the appellant No.2. The records further indicate that
on 02.08.2011, an accident occurred in the factory when
deceased Nagaraju was working as a boiler attendant. The
workman, during the course of employment sustained burnt
injuries upto 30% and was provided treatment at Victoria
Hospital, Bangalore as well as BGS Apollo Hospital, Bangalore.
The records indicate that the deceased workman was an
inpatient for more than 15 days and thereafter was treated as
an outpatient. The evidence of PW-1 - claimant and son of the
workman, clearly indicates that after the accident on
02.08.2011, his father was provided continuous treatment till
his death. PW-2 is a co-worker who was working with
deceased Nagaraju. He also deposed that the deceased
suffered the injuries during the course of his employment and
NC: 2026:KHC:16310
HC-KAR
later succumbed to the said injuries. A cogent reading of the
oral testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and other medical records
like wound certificate-Ex.P3 and the charge sheet material,
clearly indicates that the accident occurred during the course of
employment and the workman has succumbed to the injuries
on 17.11.2011 during the period of treatment. The
Commissioner, considering this aspect has clearly recorded the
finding that mere non-production of the post-mortem report by
the legal representatives of the deceased employee cannot be
the sole basis to deny the claim for compensation and hence,
cannot come to the conclusion that there is no nexus with
regard to the accidental injuries and the consequential death. I
do not find any perversity in the finding recorded by the
Commissioner as those findings are based on the oral
testimony of the claimant as well as the co-workman. It is to
be noticed that the employer has not taken such a contention
in the objections filed before the Commissioner. But, during
the evidence, as an afterthought, now the employer is disputing
the cause of death without any justifiable reason or cogent
evidence. Hence, the said contention is liable to be rejected and
is accordingly rejected.
NC: 2026:KHC:16310
HC-KAR
7. Insofar as the delay in filing the claim petition is
concerned, it is to be noticed that the workman suffered
injuries on 02.08.2011 and succumbed to the said injuries on
17.11.2011. Already, this Court has recorded the finding that
there is co-relation between the injuries and the death of the
workman. In his cross examination, PW-1 has stated that he
could not file the claim petition due to the financial difficulties.
Be that as it may, the claimant has filed the petition along with
an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963,
seeking condonation of delay for filing the petition for claim.
The said application was duly considered by the Commissioner
and a detailed order was passed on 06.04.2017, which has
attained finality. In the absence of any challenge to the said
order, the contention with regard to delay cannot be accepted.
However, it is also to be noticed that the Commissioner has
committed an error in saddling the liability of interest for the
delayed period which is required to be taken note of by this
Court. Insofar as the income of the workman is concerned, the
Commissioner, at paragraph 16 has recorded a detailed
reasoning for disbelieving Ex.R6 and accepting Ex.P4, salary
NC: 2026:KHC:16310
HC-KAR
slip of July 2011. I do not find any error or perversity in the
finding recorded by the Commissioner with regard to the
income of the deceased workman.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, I proceed to pass
the following:
ORDER
(a) The appeal is allowed-in-part. Consequently, the
pending application stands disposed of.
(b) The impugned judgment and award dated
08.03.2018 passed in E.C.A.No.4/2016 by the
Principal Senior Civil Judge and the Commissioner
for Employee's Compensation, Mandya, insofar as
the quantum of compensation, liability and rate of
interest at 12% p.a., is affirmed.
(c) However, it is made clear that the claimant would
only be entitled to interest from the date of petition
till the date of deposit.
(d) To the aforesaid extent, the impugned judgment
and award of the Commissioner is modified.
NC: 2026:KHC:16310
HC-KAR
(e) Registry shall transmit the records to the Tribunal
forthwith.
(f) Draw the modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25
