(Prayer: This MFA is filed u/S.30(1) Workmen Compensation Act, against the judgment and award dated12.04.2017 passed on Ec Ano.64/14 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA is filed u/S 30(1) of W.C. Act against the judgment and award dated: 12.04.2017 passed in Eca.No.64/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura, awarding compensation of Rs.8,54,280/- with interest at 12% P.A. from the one month from the date of accident till date of realization.)
CAV Judgment
1. The Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura, passed an award on 12.04.2017 in ECA No.64 of 2014.
2. One Ramesh Basappa met with an accident on 21.03.2014 and died subsequently. The parents and sister of Ramesh Basappa filed a claim petition under Workmen Compensation Act claiming compensation of Rs.12,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.8,54,280/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from one month from the date of the accident till realisation.
3. Aggrieved by the same, MFA No.5596 of 2017 is filed by claimants requesting for enhancement of the compensation. They stated that Tribunal had taken the monthly income of Ramesh Basappa as Rs.4,000/-, but he was earning Rs. 12,000/- per month including bata. It is also stated that as per the definition of wages found in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, any benefit received by the employee is capable of being estimated in money. The Tribunal has not granted funeral expenses and transportation of the dead body.
4. Against the same award, SBI General insurance company Ltd., the insurer in the claim petition, also preferred MFA No.5028 of 2017 and they mainly contended that on 21.03.2014, Ramesh Basappa was driving the tractor and trailer bearing No.KA-25-T-9705 during the course of his employment. He lost control over the vehicle and as a result, the tractor and trailer toppled on the left side of the road and he sustained various injuries and died on the spot. Petitioner No.1 and 2 are parents and petitioner No.3 is younger sister of Ramesh Basappa and respondent No.1 before the Tribunal was owner of the tractor trailer and the appellant-insurance company herein is the insurer of the said vehicle. It is stated that Ramesh Basappa had no valid driving licence and as such, he was charge sheeted under Section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act. It is stated that it is in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is further stated that the driving licence of Ramesh Basappa was not produced by the claimants. It is for them to prove that he was a driver by profession and had a valid driving licence to drive the tractor. Therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Tribunal.
5. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for both sides.
6. This Court, on 23.01.2026, framed the following substantial question of law :
In MFA No.5596 of 2017:
"a) Whether the court below is justified in holding the income of the deceased as Rs.4,000/- per month when the evidence on record suggest that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, which is not controverted?
b) Whether the appreciation of evidence and material on record by the court below is perverse and arbitrary?
In MFA No.5028 of 2017:
"1. WHETHER the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the evidence let in by the Insurer and rulings cited before it?
2. WHETHER the Tribunal was justified in holding the Appellant liable to indemnify the Respondent No.4 when there was positive legal evidence regarding Non possessing of valid and effective driving license placed on record to that effect.
3. WHETHER the order of the Tribunal could be justified in the light of the grounds raised in the above appeal?"
7. It is stated that Ramesh Basappa was working as a driver on the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-25- T-9705 and he lost control over the vehicle on the date of accident. As a result, the vehicle toppled on the left side of the road. He sustained the grievous injuries and died on the spot. Petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW1 and examined PWs.2 and 3. Petitioner also filed Exhibits P1 to P8. Respondent examined RW1 and filed Exhibits R1 and R2.
8. After service of summons, respondent No.1 before the Tribunal did not appear and hence, set ex-parte. The insurance company stated that there is no employer and employee relationship between Ramesh Basappa and respondent No.1. It was stated that Ramesh Basappa did not die during the course of employment. Insurance company also disputed the age, occupation and income of Ramesh Basappa.
9. PW2 was an eye witness, who was travelling in the tractor at the time of the accident. PW3 is the Supervisor, who entrusted work to him. He stated that Ramesh Basappa was working as a driver under respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. Complaint was given by PW2. As such, it was said that there was employer and employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.1. Charge sheet was filed against Ramesh Basappa under Section 3 r/w 181 of MV Act, which shows that he has no valid driving licence. PW1 is father of the deceased Ramesh Basappa. He stated that he will produce the driving licence of his son, if it is traceable. But, he has not filed it. Insurance company has neither examined the RTO nor produced the copy of the driving licence and simply relied upon the charge sheet.
10. Though it was stated that Ramesh Basappa was earning Rs.12,000/- per month, the claimants have not filed any income proof. As the accident occurred in the year 2014, the Tribunal relied upon the Central Government notification dated 31.05.2010 and considered income of Ramesh Basappa as Rs.8,000/- per month. As it is the case of death, 50% of the income comes to Rs.4,000/-. The deceased Ramesh Basappa was aged 27 years as per Exhibit P5 and the relevant factor is 213.57. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly calculated the compensation as Rs.8,54,280/-.
11. Admittedly, it is a case of no driving licence. Therefore, the claimants requested this Court to invoke the principle of pay and recovery and for the same proposition, they relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs. Om Parkash & Ors., Gurmail Singh @ Gurmer @ Gurnal Singh Vs. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., & Anr. and Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar & Anr.. The claimants also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Rajaram and others reported in (2018)8 SCC 799, wherein it was held that insurance company has not examined owner to prove that owner handed over the vehicle to the person knowing fully that he has no valid driving license.
12. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to confirm the amount of Rs.8,54,280/- awarded by the tribunal. This Court further grants Rs.5000/- to funeral expenses to the claimants as per Section 4 of ECA. Thus, in all the claimants entitled for the compensation of Rs.8,59,280/- with interest at 12% per annum.
13. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) M.F.A. No.5028 of 2017 filed by the insurance company is allowed in part and M.F.A. No.5596 of 2017 filed by claimants is allowed.
(ii) The claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.8,59,280/- with interest at 12% per annum from one month from the date of accident till realisation.
(iii) The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount of Rs.8,59,280/- within one month from the date of this order.
(iv) On such deposit, the first and second petitioners being the parents of deceased Ramesh Basappa, both of them, are permitted to withdraw the amount equally, along with interest accrued on it.
(v) The third petitioner is dependent on the first petitioner, but not on the deceased. Hence, she is not entitled for any compensation.
(vi) The insurance company is at liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle by the process of law.
