IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.886 OF 2018 (WC)

BETWEEN:

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,

REDG. & H.O NEW INDIA ASSURANCE BUILDING

NO.87, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,

FORT, BOMBAY-400 001.

REPRESENTED BY REGIONAL OFFICE

NO.2-B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX,

MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE-560 027

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR C.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SRI. K. RAMRAJ

AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

S/O LATE KUPPA @ KUPPAN

R/O MELSAPPLI VILLAGE

POLUR TALUK

TIRVANNAMALAI DISTRICT

TAMIL NADU STATE-606 905.

2. SRI C.V. MITHRAN AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O LATE C.KRISHNAN

DEERA ESTATE HOROOR POST

SUNTICOPPA

SOMWARPET TLAUK

KODAGU-571 211.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. K.G.MAREGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

SRI. S. CHETAN NAG, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 30(1)

OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN ECA NO.10/2016 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KODAGU, MADIKERI, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET- ASIDE/MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 28.10.2017 AND EXONERATE THE LIABILITY TO PAY COMPENSATION IN RESPECT OF FUNERAL EXPENSES OF RS.15,000/- AND INTEREST ON THE ENTIRE COMPENSATION AMOUNT FIXED ON THE APPELLANT INSURANCE COMPANY AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 07.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section

30(1) of Employees Compensation Act, 1924 (hereinafter referred to as “the ECA Act” for short) challenging the Judgment and Award dated 28.10.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for workmen Compensation, Madikeri (hereinafter referred to as “the Commissioner”) in ECA No.10/2016.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

On 19.03.2015, while the deceased was working on a temporary basis in Deera Estate and was assigned the work of picking pepper, he came into contact with an electric wire passing through the estate and died due to electrocution on the same day. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment, resulting in his death. Consequently, the claimant filed ECA No.10/2016, seeking compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The Commissioner has partly allowed the appeal with cost and awarded a sum of Rs.4,42,160/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from one month after the date of accident till realization and held the employer and Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that the Commissioner by its judgment and award dated 28-10-2017, accepted the contention of respondent No.1 and exonerated the employer and erroneously fastened the entire liability on the Insurance Company, awarding a merger sum of Rs.4,42,160/- with 12% interest per annum. It is further contended that the appellant is a contract basis employee, as such the liability is limited and restricted to the terms and conditions of the policy. Further, the compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses is also exorbitant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company relied upon Clause (1) in Exhibit R1/policy. It is contended that an Exclusion clause in a contract of Insurance has to be interpreted differently as the insurance contracts are special Contracts premised on the notion of good faith. An insurance Contract by its very nature mandates disclosure of all material facts by both parties. An exclusion clause or any other clause or term is a limb, which has got no existence outside, as such, it exists and vanishes along with contract, having no independent life of its own. When it is destructive to the main contract, right at its inception it has to be se