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 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293 MFA No. 200125 of 2021
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.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293 MFA No. 200125 of 2021
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: -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 1 (2012) 8 SCC 148
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1293 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 MFA No. 200125 of 2021 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 List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58 CT: AK