The employer-employee relationship is not severed merely because a driver uses the employer's vehicle for personal purposes, provided employment is established; however, compensation for future medical expenses is impermissible under the Employees Compensation Act.

Digitally signed by RUPA V RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.09.07.2018 PASSED ON ECA NO.123/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE XVI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-14), AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,70,135/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE O ACCIDENT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 09.07.2018 passed in ECA.No.123/2016 by the Member, MACT, XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-14) (for short 'the Tribunal').

2. Sri.Ashok N. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in fastening liability on the Insurance Company without appreciating the fact that on the date of accident, the claimant had borrowed the vehicle from its owner for his personal use, and the accident occurred during such personal use. Therefore, the accident had no nexus with his employment and the relationship of employer and employee did not exist. It is submitted that PW1/injured in his cross-examination has clearly admitted that he had borrowed the vehicle for personal use and was travelling along with his family members at the time of the accident, which itself demonstrates the absence of any employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the claim petition itself was not maintainable and the Tribunal ought to have rejected it on this ground alone. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- towards future medical expenses, which is impermissible under the statute. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.

3. Per contra, Sri.N.Gopalakrishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the Tribunal considering the evidence on record, has rightly recorded the finding that the injured was in employment of the owner of the vehicle from last 2 years. It is submitted that on the date of the accident, although the vehicle was engaged by the family members and the injured was driving, that itself would not break the umbilical cord of the employer-employee relationship. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered this aspect and awarded just compensation. Therefore, there is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the appeal.

4. I have heard the arguments on both the sides and meticulously perused the material available on record.

5. The appellant/Insurance Company as well as the respondent/injured claimant are not in dispute that the respondent met with a road accident on 21.07.2016 while he was driving the LMV Mot Cab, namely Toyota Etios bearing registration No.KA-41-A-6096. The averments in the claim petition indicate that respondent No.1 had been working as a driver under respondent No.2 for more than 2 years. On the date of the accident, the said vehicle had been hired from its owner for the purpose of attending a family function and the claimant, along with his family members, was travelling in the said vehicle. The evidence on record clearly indicates that the claimant was in the employment of respondent No.2 for the preceding two years, which is more evident from Ex.P2, the stat