IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2408 OF 2018 (WC)

BETWEEN:

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE: 1^ST FLOOR, TUMUR SHOPPING COMPLEX, B.H.ROAD, TUMKUR.

REPRSENTED BY DIVISIONAL OFFICE-XII, MAYUR COMPLEX, KIADB MAIN ROAD, PEENYA, BANGALORE-560 058.

REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.

…APPELLANT AND:

1. SMT. KALAMMA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, W/O LATE PARUSAPPA @ PARASHURAM, 2. KUM. HULUGAMMA AGED ABOUT 07 YEARS, D/O LATE PARUSAPPA @ PARASHURAM, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN/MOTHER, SMT.KALAMMA

3. SRI. RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O SRI.HULIGEPPA, THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/AT KALAPURA VILLAGE, KUDLIGI TALUK, BELLARI DISTRICT-586 101. NOW ALL ARE RESIDING AT M/S. FAIR GRANITES AND ASSOCIATES, PANDITANAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVARAYAPATNA POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101.

4. SRI. K.M.ABDUL KHADAR AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE MOHAMMED, R/AT M/S. FAIR GRANITES & ASSOCIATES, PANDITANAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVARAYAPATNA POST, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101.

…RESPONDENTS ((BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR.C.R., ADVOCATE – FOR APPELLANT)

(R1 TO R4 ARE PLACED EX-PARTE V/O/DTD:29.03.2023)

***

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.01.08.2016 PASSED IN ECA NO.36/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & MACT, TUMAKURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,73,880/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF THE ACCIDENT FROM RESPONDENTS TILL REALIZATION.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

ORAL JUDGMENT

I.A.No.1/2018 & I.A.No.2/2018

1. I.A.No.1/2018 is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company seeking condonation of delay of 521 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.No.1/2018 is allowed. The delay of 521 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company seeks to rely upon I.A.No.2/2018 in this behalf to say that the entire issue would rest on the Insurance policy. However, it is contended that since the Panel Advocate had not filed the insurance policy before the learned Trial Court, he has placed the same before this Court, in an application under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being I.A.No.2/2018.

4. The record reflects that since there was no appearance on behalf of the respondents, the respondents were proceeded with ex-parte by order dated 29.03.2023 passed by this Court. No objections have been filed by any party to this application. Given the issue involved, this policy is necessary and relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal. Accordingly, and for the reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.No.2/2018 is allowed. The appellant is permitted to produce the certified copy of the insurance policy. The same is taken on record.

MFA No.2408/2018

5. The present appeal seeks to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 01.08.2016, in E.C.A.No.36/2014, passed by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Tumakuru, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Award’). The claim petition under Section 10(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the “E.C.Act”) has been partly allowed and the compensation in a sum of ₹8,73,880/- has been awarded in favour of the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimant Nos.1 to 3.

With interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

6. As stated above, the respondent Nos.1 to 4 are placed ex-parte, by an order of this Court dated 29.03.2023.

7. The brief facts are that, one Parusappa @ Parashuram, aged about 23 years, was a workman employed with respondent No.4 in a Crusher Unit, situated at Sy.No.9 of Panditanahalli, Devarayapatna, Tumkur Taluk, on a monthly salary of Rs.8,000/-. On 14.11.2012, while he was pulling broken stones