IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that non-compliance with certain statutory requirements, breach of insurance policy conditions, and breach of duty by the owner or driver did not bar the claimants from seeking compensation under the Employees Compensation Act. The court also clarified the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 23.01.2017 passed by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Tumkur in ECA No.116 of 2014. (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal' for brevity) questioning the liability to pay compensation.

Brief facts:

2. It is stated that H.D. Veeranna S/o Devendrappa, was a workman, within the meaning of Employees Compensation Act, as a loader-unloader-cum cleaner under the 1st respondent in TATA Ace Goods Vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-16-B-6716 on monthly salary of Rs.9,000/- and he was getting bhatta of Rs.50/- per day, under the employment of respondent No.6. On 02.05.2014 at about 4.30 p.m., when H.D. Veeranna was proceeding in the said vehicle, it met with an accident near Ajjagondanahalli circle, Bellavi Hobli, Tumakur Taluk, due to the rash and negligent driving by its driver, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and shifted to Government Hospital, Tumakur. After First Aid, he was shifted to Dhanush Hospital, Bengaluru and thereafter, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru for treatment. While taking treatment on 05.05.2014, H.D.Veeranna died due to the injuries sustained in the alleged road traffic accident.

3. Hence, the claim petition was filed by the claimants under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act ('EC Act' for brevity), claiming compensation in respect of the death of H.D.Veeranna caused during the course of his employment. The Tribunal on appreciating the materials on record, allowed the claim petition along with costs and awarded a compensation of Rs.8,91,770/-, together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization. The Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation.

4. Heard arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondents- claimants and perused the materials on record.

Submission of learned counsel for Insurance Company:

5. The learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance company submitted that in the present case, the respondents-claimants have not proved the relationship of the employer and the employee between the deceased and respondent No.6-owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the claim made before the Tribunal was not maintainable.

6. It is submitted that the owner-respondent No.6 has not produced any registers or records showing respondent No.6 was an employer of the deceased. Therefore, no employer-employee relationship is proved before the Tribunal. There is no compliance with reference to Section 18 of Minimum Wages Act ('MW Act' for brevity) and Rules 29 and 29(B) of the Karnataka Minimum Wages Rules ('KMW Rules' for brevity). It is mandatory on the part of the employer to maintain a register and records regarding employment of employees under him, but, respondent No.6 has not produced any register or records proving that the deceased was working under his employment. Further submitted that for non-compliance of these mandatory requirements of Section 18 of the MW Act and Rules, the claim petition is not maintainable, for want of proof of relationship of employer and employee.

7. Further, submitted that as per Section 10 EC Act no prior notice was issued by respondent No.6- employer soon after the accident. Therefore, the claim made by the claimants is not maintainable in view of non- issuance of notice to Insurance Company. Further submitted that as per Section 4-A of EC Act, compensation shall be paid as soon as it falls due. Under the EC Act, the primary liability is on the employer to satisfy the claim and later the Insurance company to indemnify, subject to insurance policy. But in the present case respondent No.6-owner has not complied with Section 4-A of EC Act. Hence, submitted the claim petition is not maintainable.

8. Further, learned counsel submitted t