Bangalore District Court
Athish Alias Athis.R vs Zoom Car India Pvt Ltd on 4 March, 2026
KABC020284402019
IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.JUDGE AND MOTOR
incident CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, BENGALURU
(SCCH-18)
Dated: This the 4th day of March 2026
Present: DHANESH MUGALI
B.Com., LL.B.,(Spl.)
III ADDL. JUDGE &
MEMBER, MACT
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BENGALURU.
E.C.A. No.139/2019
Petitioner Sri. Athish alias Athish R,
S/o Renukappa G.S. alias
Renukappa,
Aged about 24 years,
A person incapable of protecting
his interest is represented by his
next friend Sri. G.S. Renukappa
alias Renukappa,
S/o Gangarevaiah,
Aged about 62 years,
Both are residing at
Shivarchitha, 1st Main Road,
1st Cross, Adarshanagara,
Hanumanthapura,
Tumkur - 572103.
(By Pleader Shri C.
Shambhulingaiah)
SCCH-18 2 ECA.139/2019
V/s
Respondents 1. Zoom Car India Pvt. Ltd.,
Unit T-2 Gem Plaza, 3rd Floor,
No.66, Infantry Road,
Bangalore - 560001.
By its Manager,
(By Pleader Sri.Sagar G Nahar)
2. Akashar D
S/o M.S. Devanand,
Major by age,
residing at No.896,
Kanasu, Dwarakanagar,
Channasandra,
Bengaluru - 560 098.
(Expate)
3. ICICI Lombard General
Insurance Company Ltd.,
No.121, The Estate Building,
9th Floor, Dickenson Road,
M.G. Road, Bengaluru - 560 001.
Rep. its Manager.
(By Pleader Sri. Gururaj Salur)
SCCH-18 3 ECA.139/2019
JUDGMENT
This is a claim petition filed by the petitioner against the respondent U/s. 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 for seeking compensation of Rs.1,30,75,200/- with 12% interest and costs for the injuries sustained by him, during the course of employment.
The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under;
2. It is the averments of the petition that, the respondent No.1 is the fleet of 50 motor cabs, who is giving same on hire to persons desiring to drive either by themselves for their own use or through the drivers engaged for the purpose. The Mahindra Scorpio 7 seater motor cab vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-03/AB-6517 is one of such vehicle used by 1st respondent for operating on hire. On 08-05-2015, the respondent No.2 took the aforesaid said vehicle on rent by engaging the p etitioner as a driver of the vehicle, who is recruited as driver by 1st respondent and agreed to pay wages @ Rs.300/- per day, apart from meeting the expenses for food or other incidental expenses and hire charges. On 8.5.2015 at about 11-30 p.m. the petitioner driving the car on SCCH-18 4 ECA.139/2019 Bangalore - Puna High way J.G. Halli, the said vehicle met with an accident, as a result the petitioner sustained injuries. Thereafter he was shifted to Government Hospital, Hiriyur for first aid. Thereafter, he took treatment as an inpatient at Manipal Hospital & Columbia Asia Hospital, Bangalore and incurred huge amount towards medication and other incidental charges. Due to accidental injuries he is unable to move on his own and unable to do his work as earlier, hence he requires nursing and attendant services to attend his daily needs. The accident in question arose during the course of employment with the 1st respondent, who rented the car in question with petitioner as a driver to respondent No.2 and he received an additional sum of Rs.50/- for legal liabilities to paid driver. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 and policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay the compensation. Hence, this petition.
3. In response to the notices, the respondents No.1 & 3 have appeared through their respective counsel and filed written statements. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has not appeared before this court, remained absent, placed exparte.
SCCH-18 5 ECA.139/20194. In written statement, respondents No.1 has contended that this petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is contended that there is no relationship whatsoever nature between petitioner and respondent No.1. There is a delay of 926 days in filing the claim petition. It has engaged in the business of letting out "Self drive" cars to its customers for short period of time. In order to avail this service, the person must acquire a membership with company, agreed by terms and conditions. It does not provide driver along with vehicles and it bears no responsibility towards losses or damages to any third parties arising from or related to the member agreement or use of vehicles and services provided thereof. The car bearing Reg.No.KA- 03/AB-6517 owned by respondent No.1 and was let out to respondent No.2 Akshar D. from 8-5-2015 4.00 p.m. to 8-5-2015 4.00 p.m and car was handed over to respondent No.2 on 8-5-2015 4.00 p.m. Hence it is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Further denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and expenses incurred towards medication and other incidental charges and prays to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
SCCH-18 6 ECA.139/20195. In written statement, respondents No.3 has contended that this petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The alleged accident has not arisen during the course of employment and there is no relationship of employer and employee between petitioner and the respondent No.1. There is a delay in filing the claim petition, hence the petition is barred by limitation. This respondent has admitted about issuance of insurance policy in respect of Mahindra Scorpio Cab vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-03/AB-6517 this respondent restricted its liability to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is contended that there is no nexus between the injuries and employment as per wound certificate dated 12-10-2015. The medical bills produced by the petitioner are not supported with the proper receipts. Further denied the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and expenses incurred towards medication and other incidental charges and prays to dismiss the petition with exemplary costs.
6. On the basis of the rival pleadings of both the parties this Tribunal had framed the following issues:
SCCH-18 7 ECA.139/2019ISSUES
1. Whether the petitioner proves that there is employee and employer relationship between him and the 2nd respondent ?
2. Whether the petitioner proves that during the course of employment he has sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 08.05.2015, when he was driver under the 2nd respondent in respect of vehicle Car bearing No.KA-03/AB-6517 at about 11-30 p.m. near J.G. Halli, on NH-4 road, Suvanan Mukhi Bridge, Hiriyur Taluk, Chitradurga belonging to 2nd respondent?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what is the quantum and from whom?
4. What order or award?
Additional Issue;
Whether the petitioner proves that he had sufficient cause for not filing the petition within the limitation period prescribed under section 10(1) of Employees Compensation act, 1923?
SCCH-18 8 ECA.139/20197. In order to substantiate the case, the guardian of the petitioner got examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P14 & Ex.P30. Apart from his evidence, placed the evidence of Senior Medical Record Associate in Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru as PW2 and got marked documents at Ex.P15 to Ex.P22. Further examined Senior Medical Record Associate, and got marked the documents at Ex.P23 to Ex.P25. Further placed the evidence of MRO of Christian Medical College, Vellore as PW4 and got marked the documents at Ex.P26 to Ex.P29.
8. On the other hand, the Legal Manager of respondent No.3 is examined as RW1 and got marked one document as Ex.R1. Further examined office-in- charge of the Department of BCA PESIT Campus as RW2. Further the respondent No.1 examined its Authorized Signatory as RW3 and got marked documents as Ex.R2 to Ex.R9.
9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both sides and counsel for the respondent No.1 has filed written argument and perused the materials available on record.
SCCH-18 9 ECA.139/201910.The Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted following decisions:
1) 2014 ACJ 686 Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, between Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., V/s Vasudev and another Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, "even though accident occurred due to negligence of driver, it cannot be held to be willfull disobedience. Willful disobedience differs from negligence. Hence, even if the accident occurs during the course of employment his employer shall be liable to pay compensation".
2) 2016 ACJ 663 Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, at New Delhi, between National Insurance Co.
Ltd., V/s Sarita Mishra and others Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that, "if a person holds a driving licence then he is entitled to drive and it is nowhere provided in the act that person must be employed as a driver for entire month and only such person who drives the vehicle will be called as a driver. Employee who has a driving licence and drives the vehicle falls within the meaning of driver as found under section 2(1) (dd) (ii) (c)".
3) AIR 2018 Supreme Court 5034 Civil Appeal Nos.10588-89 of 2018 between Sebastiani Lakra and others., V/s National Insurance Co. Ltd., and another.
Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that, "deduction cannot be allowed from the amount of compensation either an account of insurance or on account of pensionary benefits or gratuity or grant of employment to a kin of the deceased. The main reason is that all these amounts SCCH-18 10 ECA.139/2019 are earned by the deceased on account of contractual relations entered into by him with others. It cannot be said that these amounts accrued to the defendants or the legal heirs of the deceased on account of his death in a motor vehicle accident.
11. The Learned Counsel for Respondent No.3 submitted following decisions:
1. MFA.No.12346/2006 (WC) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, between the Managing Director, Hiranyakeshi Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamit, Sankeshwar V/s Shrishail C. Bennihalli.
Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench held that, "if it is a case of the claimant, he has sustained injuries during the course of his employment by virtue of accident committed by the tractor, he could have filed claim petition before the Commissioner well in time. He moved to the MACT by filing MVC No.2793/2003 alleging that the respondent-tractor driver committed an accident. In the MACT, the appellant including the respondents were not made as parties. This shows that the claim made by the claimant is only in order to get unjust compensation by the tribunal. The claimant after filing before the MACT, he approached the commissioner for compensation, which shows that he was not sure by he was entitled for claiming compensation by the tribunal or not. Under the circumstances I find that, the commissioner committed an error in condoning the delay of 7 years without there being any material".
2. MFA.No.101352/2018 (WC) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, between the Divisional Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Durgaji and others., SCCH-18 11 ECA.139/2019 Wherein Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench held that, the owner of the vehicle has consistently taken a stand that he had never employed the deceased as a cleaner in his lorry and there was no employer and employee relationship between him and the deceased. The complaint-Ex.P1 lodged immediately after the accident also shows that the deceased was found on account of some motor vehicle accident by the side of the road. The police after investigation filed a C-report as per Ex.P7. Without giving due attention to these aspects available on record, learned court below has given a finding that employer-employee relationship has been established in this case is liable to be set aside.
3. MFA.No.11704/2012 (WC) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between National Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Sri.Siddagangaiah and another.
Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru held that "as per Section 3 of the Employees Compensation Act, that the injuries caused during the course of employment, then only the claim application under the Employees' Compensation Act is maintainable".
4. MFA.No.789/2016 (MV) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, between Mohankumar T. V/s Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., and another Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that, "the claimant claims he was earning Rs.2,69,980/- per month by working as software Engineer at IBM. He claims that he has suffered loss of income for a period of two months due to injuries. He has not examined the doctor regarding disabilities suffered by him. Further he has not examined the employer to prove that he has availed leave and has not drawn any salary for the leave period. Therefore, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation under the head of loss of income during laidup period".
SCCH-18 12 ECA.139/20195. MFA.No.200789/2018 (MV) C/w MFA.No.201966/2018 (MV) Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench, between the Divisional Manager, Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd., V/s Saalibai and another, Wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has "restricted award amount to a sum of Rs.2,80,540/- from Rs.5,98,000/- by considering the wholebody disability of the claimant at 15%".
12. My findings to the above issues are as under:
Additional Issue:In the Affirmative Issue No.1: In the Negative Issue No.2: In the Negative Issue No.3: Does not survive for consideration Issue No.4: As per final order for the following:
R E A S O N S Additional Issue No.1:
13. This issue is for the point on limitation is concerned, it is pertinent to note that, accident in question had taken place on 8.5.2015. Instant claim petition has been filed on 19.9.2019. No doubt, there is an inordinate delay, in filing this claim petition by the SCCH-18 13 ECA.139/2019 original petitioner-Athish @ Athis R. In this regard, question would arises why the petitioner kept quite till 19.9.2019, when the accident had taken place in the year 2015. The petitioner has filed I.A. No.II u/s 5 of Limitation Act 1960, seeking condonation of delay for the delay of 926 days. In the accompanying affidavit the father of the petitioner as a next friend has stated that after the accident, the petitioner was given treatment at Government Hospital, Hiriyur. Thereafter the petitioner was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru for treatment till 6.8.2015. On 1.9.2015, the petitioner was admitted at Columbia Asia Hospital. Again petitioner was treated at Manipal hospital on 30.9.2015. Again petitioner was treated at Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru between 19.12.2015 to 22.12.2015. Even now, the petitioner is taking treatment by following the medical advice of the doctors. The delay in filing the present claim petition is bonafide and beyond the control of the petitioner. In this regard PW1 in his chief-examination reiterated the averments made in the petition. The learned counsel for the respondents have cross-examined PW1 in this regard. But nothing has been elicited from the mouth of PW1 to show that the petitioner had not sufficient cause for filing delay in filing the petition.
SCCH-18 14 ECA.139/201914. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that delay in filing the petition is not an intention but beyond control of the petitioner. Further, the learned counsel has relied the following decisions;
1) 1989 ACJ 641 between Shahabad Farmers Co-operative Marketing-cum-Processing Society Ltd., Vs. Chajju Ram
2) 2003 ACJ 1257 between Dilip Singh and others Vs. General Manager, Central Railway and others
3) 2018 ACJ 2874 between Executive Engineer, Rana Pratap Sagar Dam Vs. Harish Kumar & Others I have gone through the supra decisions the common principle laid down in the supra decisions is that "the law has given discretion to the court to extend the timings to the suitable cases. The employees compensation act 1923 is a welfare legislation warrants liberal constructions to extreme limits for achieving for object of registration. Courts are bound to be vigilant to seen that benefits conferred by welfare legislation are not defeated by subtle devices. Sufficient cause means a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking its aid, therefore, to be construed liberally for advancing substantial justice".
15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 & 2 have argued that Section 10 of Employees' Compensation Act has clearly barred for entertaining the claim petition. Further, the learned SCCH-18 15 ECA.139/2019 counsel for the respondent No.1 has relied the following decision in support of his argument.
Civil Appeal No.5786/2012 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, between Shantabai Ananda Jagtap & anr, V/s Jayaram Ganpati Jagtap & anr., Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that, "delay of 9 years in filing application under the 1923 Act, certainly fatal for consideration of the claim by the Appellants for award of compensation. In fact, the application before the Commissioner was filed only after proceedings in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal were concluded on 7.2.2003 and the appellants were not able to get any compensation in execution. The application before the commissioner was filed 2.8.2004. Therefore, in our opinion no sufficient cause is established for condonation of delay in filing the application".
16. It is better to mention Section 10(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act 1923, which reads as under;
No claim for compensation shall be entertained by a commissioner unless notice of the accident has been given in the manner hereinafter provided as soon as practicable after the happening thereof and unless the claim is preferred before him within two years of the occurrence of the accident or in case of death within two years from the date of death.
Provided that where the accident is the contracting of a disease in respect of which the provisions of sub section 2 of section 3 are applicable the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the first of the days during which the employee was continuously absent from work in consequence of the disablement caused by the disease.
Provided further that in case of partial disablement due to the contracting of any such disease and which does not force the SCCH-18 16 ECA.139/2019 employee to absent himself from work the period of two years shall be counted from the day the employee gives notice of the disablement to his employer.
Provided further that if an employee who having been employed in an employment for a continuous period specified under sub section 2 of section 3 in respect of that employment ceases to be so employed and develops symptoms of an occupational disease peculiar to that employment within two years of the cessation of employment the accident shall be deemed to have occurred on the day on which the symptoms were first detected.
Provided further that the want of or any defect or irregularity in a notice shall not be a bar to the entertainment of a claim;
a) if the claim is preferred in respect of the death of an employee resulting from an accident which occurred on the premises of the employer or at any place where the employee at the time of the accident was working under the control of the employer or of any person employed by him and the employee died on such premises or at such place or on any premises belonging to the employer or died without having left the vicinity of the premises or place where the accident occurred or
b) if the employer or any one of several employers or any person responsible to the employer for the management of any branch of the trade or business in which the injured employee was employed had knowledge of the accident from any other source at or about the time when it occurred Provided further that the commissioner may entertain and decide any claim to compensation in any case notwithstanding that the notice has not been given or the claim has not been preferred in due time as provided in this sub section if he is satisfied that the failure so to give the notice or prefer the claim as the case may be was due to sufficient cause".
17. On plain reading of above section it is clear that, the claimant has to file claim petition within two SCCH-18 17 ECA.139/2019 years from the date of occurrence of the accident. But the claimant can file the claim petition by showing sufficient cause for delay in filing the claim petition. In this case, it appears that the petitioner is still under treatment. The act has been emerged on the concept of beneficial legislation. Only on the point of delay, it is not apt to reject the case of the claimant in toto. By looking into the injuries sustained by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that he had sufficient cause for delay in filing the claim petition. Accordingly additional issue No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No.1 & ISSUE No.2:
18. As these two issues are inter-linked with each other, in order to avoid the repetition of facts and discussions, they are taken together for common discussion.
19. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, the respondent No.1 is a fleet of 50 motor cabs, who is giving same on hire to persons desiring to drive either by themselves for their own use or through the drivers engaged for the purpose. The Mahindra Scorpio 7 seater motor cab vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-03/AB-6517 is SCCH-18 18 ECA.139/2019 one of such vehicle used by 1st respondent for operating on hire. On 08-05-2015 the respondent No.2 took the aforesaid vehicle on rent by engaging the petitioner as a driver of the vehicle, who is recruited as driver by respondent No.1 and agreed to pay wages @ Rs.300/- per day, apart from meeting the expenses for food or other incidental expenses and hire charges. On 8.5.2015 at about 11-30 p.m. the petitioner was driving the car on Bangalore - Puna High way J.G. Halli, the said vehicle met with an accident, as a result the petitioner sustained injuries. The accident in question arose during employment with the respondent No.1, who rented the car in question with petitioner as a driver to respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 received an additional sum of Rs.50/- for legal liabilities to paid driver.
20. On the other hand, it is the strong contention of the respondent No.1 that, there is no relationship whatsoever nature between petitioner and respondent No.1. There is a delay of 926 days in filing the claim petition. This respondent has engaged in the business of letting out "Self drive" cars to its customers for short period of time. In order to avail this service, the person must acquire a membership with company, agreed by SCCH-18 19 ECA.139/2019 terms and conditions. It does not provide driver along with vehicles and it bears no responsibility towards losses or damages to any third parties arising from or related to the member agreement or use of vehicles and services provided thereof. The car bearing Reg.No.KA- 03/AB-6517 owned by respondent No.1 and was let out to respondent No.2 Akshar D. from 8-5-2015 4.00 p.m.
21. Further, the respondent No.3 has contended that the alleged accident has not taken place during the course of employment and there is no relationship of employer and employee between petitioner and the respondent No.1. There is a delay in filing the claim petition, hence the petition is barred by limitation.
22. On the basis of all these rival contentions, burden is on the petitioner to prove the above issues by placing, cogent and convincing evidence on record.
23. The petitioner herein, examined as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. In the affidavit evidence of PW1, reiterated the main petition averments and placed Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.P1-true copy of FIR, Ex.P2-true copy of complaint, Ex.P3-true copy of SCCH-18 20 ECA.139/2019 mahazar, Ex.P5-true copy of spot sketch, Ex.P5-true copy of IMV report, Ex.P6-true copy of charge sheet.
24. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 has examined its Legal Manager as RW1. He has deposed in his evidence that the respondent No.1 company is having its business of letting out self-drive cars to its customers and not provide any drivers along with the vehicles. The respondent No.1 has let out the car bearing No.KA-03-AB-6517 to the respondent No.2 on 8.5.2015 and the respondent has never provided the petitioner as a driver. Hence, there is no relationship between the respondent No.1 and the petitioner. He has placed insurance policy at Ex.R1. In the cross- examination denied the suggestion that the respondent No.2 had appointed the petitioner as a driver and sent to Goa along with Santhosh, Sandeep and Nikhil.
25. Further, the respondent No.3 has examined office incharge of the Department of BCA, PESIT Campus, Bengaluru as RW2. He has deposed that the petitioner has completed his studies in the BCA in the year 2015 and after finishing the studies he has left the college. In their office they did not kept the records SCCH-18 21 ECA.139/2019 more than 5 years and will destroy the records in their campus.
26. In support of the stand of the respondent No.1 examined its authorised signatory for Zoomcar India Pvt. Ltd., as RW3. He has deposed in his evidence that their company is engaged in the business of providing self drive cars a short-term rental basis through online platform. At the time of registration, every user accepts the terms and conditions and enters into a member agreement. They did not employ or supply drivers for any of their vehicles. All the vehicles are rented strictly on a self-drive basis to the registered members who agree to the terms of the ZoomCab Membership Agreement. The vehicle Mahindra Scorpio bearing No.KA-03-AB-6517 was booked by respondent No.2- Akshar D. on 8.5.2015 at about 4.00 p.m. under booking ID JPS6EXDOX and it was handed over to him for self-drive purpose only. Further deposed that, they never authorised the petitioner to drive the vehicle nor was he engaged by us in any manner. Any arrangement between the respondent and the petitioner is unknown to us and hence, they have not liable. He has placed authorisation letter, Zoom Car membership agreement. R.C. policy copy, D.L., computerised copy of advance SCCH-18 22 ECA.139/2019 booking, computerised copy of Article of Association and certificate u/s 63, which are marked at Ex.R2 to Ex.R9. In the cross-examination he has admitted that they have given car to the respondent No.2 on rental basis. The respondent No.2 had produced I.D. card and D.L. to take the vehicle. Further denied the suggestion that car hirer can appoint the driver and also denied that the respondent No.2 had appointed the driver.
27. Apart from this, the petitioner was subjected for cross-examination at length. In the cross- examination he has stated that on the date of accident his son was proceeding to Goa after completion of his examination. Further admitted that the first information was given by Santhosh. In the FIR there is no mention about the name of Akshar. It is also the admission of the petitioner that his son had not said about the trip of Goa and after the accident he was not in a position to talk. The person who had hired the car had stated that his son was a driver, his name is Akshar. Further, he has admitted that there is no employment letter pertaining to his son. There is no pay slips, they have given the cash of Rs.300/- per day. He has not placed any documents to show that his son was working in the SCCH-18 23 ECA.139/2019 respondent No.1 company. Further admitted that complainant is the friend of his son.
28. Further. this petitioner was cross-examined by the respondent No.3 and admitted that, in the year 2015 his son was a student. Further admitted that there is no document to show that his son was receiving Rs.300/- per day.
29. On perusal of the evidence of RW3, he has clearly stated that at no point of time they have appointed the petitioner as a driver. On perusal of Ex.R7 clearly reveals that one Akshar had hired the Zoom car. Further, on perusal of evidence of PW1, it is clear that he has not placed any document to show that the petitioner was proceeding as a driver under the respondent No.1's Zoomcar on the date of accident. From his cross-examination, it is clear that PW1 had not known that his son was working as a driver under the respondent No.1. Further he has not placed any document to show that his son was getting Rs.300/- per day. Even in the name of FIR also complainant has not mentioned the name of the Akshar, who hired the Zoom car. The petitioner has not made an effort to examine the respondent No.2 i.e., Akshar and the inmates of the SCCH-18 24 ECA.139/2019 car, who are the best witnesses to speak that who had appointed the petitioner as a driver on the date of accident.
30. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that, respondent No.2 was appointed the petitioner as a driver to drive the Zoomcar. Further respondent No.2 enters into the shoes of respondent No.1. Further, the respondent No.1 has paid premium for covering risk of the driver. Further the learned counsel has relied Section 2(9), 2(25) and Section 75 of M.V. Act 1988.
31. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has argued that the petitioner never employee under respondent No.1. There is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the respondent No.1. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable.
32. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has argued that the respondent No.1 has denied the relationship of the employee and the employer.
SCCH-18 25 ECA.139/2019Therefore, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation.
33. On perusal of petition, there is no pleadings with regard to employment of the petitioner by respondent No.2. Therefore, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner holds no water.
34. By considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it is crystal clear that, as on the date of the incident the petitioner has failed to prove that he was working as a driver of the Zoom car under the respondent No.1 and the accident was occurred during the course of employment. Hence I am answering the issue No. 1 & 2 in the Negative.
ISSUE No.3:
35. This issue is with respect to the entitlement of reliefs claimed by the petitioner. As already discussed in issue No.1 & 2 that the petitioner has failed to establish relationship between him and the respondent No.1 as employee and employer and during the course of employment the incident occurred. Hence question of awarding compensation does not arise.
SCCH-18 26 ECA.139/2019ISSUE NO. 4:
36. In view of my finding on issue Nos.1 to 3 and additional issue, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition filed by the petitioner U/s. 22 of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is hereby dismissed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, no order as to costs.
Draw award accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 4th day of March 2026).
(DHANESH MUGALI) III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE MEMBER, MACT & ACJM, BENGALURU.
SCCH-18 27 ECA.139/2019ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on petitioner's side:
PW1 Shri G.S. Renukappa PW2 Smt. Vedavathi N. PW3 Sri. Kashappa S.G. PW4 Joshua Daniel
List of documents exhibited on petitioner's side:
Ex.P1 FIR
Ex.P2 Complaint
Ex.P3 Spot mahazar
Ex.P4 Spot sketch
Ex.P5 IMV report
Ex.P6 Charge sheet
Ex.P7 Notarized copy of DL
Ex.P8 & Notarized copies of Aadhaar card
Ex.P9
Ex.P10 8 Discharge summaries
Ex.P11 Wound certificate
Ex.P12 Inpatient bills
Ex.P13 Medical bills
Ex.P14 Consolidated receipts
Ex.P15 Authorization letter
Ex.P16 Case sheet
Ex.P17 Medical bills
Ex.P18 X-ray
Ex.P19 CT Scan report
Ex.P20 Out patient record
Ex.P21 MLC register
Ex.P22 Police intimation
Ex.P23 Authorization letter
Ex.P24 Discharge summary
Ex.P25 Outpatient record
Ex.P26 Authorization letter
SCCH-18 28 ECA.139/2019
Ex.P27 Inpatient record
Ex.P28 Outpatient record
Ex.P29 Statement of account
Ex.P30 Disability certificate
List of witnesses examined on respondents' side:
RW1 Smt. Anagha G.R. RW2 Sri. Thyagaraju V. RW3 Sri. Kishor G.
List of documents exhibited on respondents' side:
Ex.R1 Insurance policy
Ex.R2 Authorization letter
Ex.R3 Zoom Car members agreement
letter
Ex.R4 RC
Ex.R5 Insurance policy
Ex.R6 DL
Ex.R7 Advance details online copy
Ex.R8 Article of association online copy
Ex.R9 Certificate U/Sec.63 of Indian
Evidence Act 2023.
(DHANESH MUGALI)
III ADDL.SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
MEMBER, MACT & ACJM,
BENGALURU.