- 1 - MFA No. 8389 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8389 OF 2022(ECA) BETWEEN: SRI GOURAPPA B HUMBERI S/O BASAPPA HUMBERI AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O NARENDRA BAHRWAD (DHARWAD) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGARAJA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI RAVI F NANDUVINAMANI S/O FAKIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/O PETE ONI NARENDRA DHARWAD 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD BRANCH OFFICE KUNDAPURA SRI LAXMI NARASIMHA COMPLEX OPP KSRTC DEPOT, NH 66 VADERHOBLI, KUNDAPUR REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 - SERVED, UNREPRESENTED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 25.08.2022 PASSED IN ECA NO. 03/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - MFA No. 8389 of 2022 COMPENSATION, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV JUDGMENT The claimant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 25.08.2022 passed in ECA No.3/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Kundapura (for short, 'the Commissioner'), seeking enhancement of the award amount. 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are that the claimant was employed as a conductor/cleaner in the Maxi Cab bearing Registration No. KA- 26-A-0780, belonging to the respondent No.1. On 25.05.2017, while discharging his duties during the course and in the course of his employment, the said Maxi Cab met with an accident near Annebeelu Cross, Ananthavadi, Manki, on NH-66, resulting in the claimant sustaining grievous injuries. Subsequently, the claimant instituted a claim petition before the Commissioner seeking adequate compensation. - 3 - MFA No. 8389 of 2022 3. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Commissioner partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,53,225/- with applicable interest, fastening the liability on the insurer. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation so awarded, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Nagaraj Hegde for the appellant-claimant and the learned counsel Sr. Ravish Benni for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 5. Apart from urging several other contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant primarily contended that the Commissioner has committed an error in restricting the monthly wages of the claimant to Rs.8,000/-, despite the claimant producing the salary certificate at Ex.P33 and adducing cogent oral evidence to establish the wages drawn by him. It was contended that the Commissioner ought to have accepted the actual monthly wages proved on record for the purpose of computing compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act. It was further submitted that, on account of the erroneous assessment of wages, the compensation - 4 - MFA No. 8389 of 2022 awarded is grossly inadequate and calls for suitable enhancement. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director BAMUL vs Smt. Nirupama and Others in MFA No.6905/2018. Accordingly he prays to allow the appeal by enhancing the award of compensation. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – Insurance Company contended that the Commissioner has erred in assessing the loss of earning capacity at 19%, in the absence of acceptable evidence to substantiate the same. It was submitted that the medical evidence on record was insufficient to establish the extent of functional disability or its impact on the claimant's earning capacity. According to the learned counsel, the Commissioner has mechanically accepted the evidence of PW.2-the Doctor, without there being adequate material to support the assessment of loss of earning capacity. On these grounds, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. - 5 - MFA No. 8389 of 2022 7. In the light of the rival contentions and the material available on record, the sole point that would arises for my consideration is : "Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner calls for interference?" 8. As could be gathered from the records, it is not in dispute that the accident in question occurred on 25.05.2017 during the course of the claimant's employment in the Maxi Cab belonging to the respondent No.1 and the same was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company. The principal contention urged by the insurance company relates to the assessment of disability. The records disclose that PW.2, the Orthopaedic Surgeon, has deposed regarding the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the treatment administered, the residual disability and the consequent loss of earning capacity. The doctor assessed permanent partial disability at 28% to the right lower limb and 10% to the right upper limb. Accordingly, The Commissioner assessed the functional disability at 19% for the purpose of computation of compensation. Significantly, the Insurance Company did not adduce any rebuttal evidence though adequate opportunity was - 6 - MFA No. 8389 of 2022 granted. Hence, the contention of the insurance company that the disability has been assessed without supporting evidence is liable to be rejected. 9. However, this Court finds that the Commissioner committed an error in restricting the monthly wages of the claimant to ₹8,000/- by applying the statutory ceiling notwithstanding the production of the salary certificate and the evidence adduced by the claimant. The claimant has produced Ex.P33 - Salary Certificate, which discloses that he was employed as a conductor-cum-cleaner in the Maxi Cab and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- with Bata of Rs.500/- per day. In support of the said document, the claimant has also examined the employer, who has spoken to the employment and wages of the claimant. Significantly, the salary certificate and the oral testimony of the employer have not been effectively rebutted or discredited by the Insurance Company. Further, the avocation of the claimant as a driver-cum-cleaner has also not been seriously disputed. 10. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Managing Director BAMUL vs Smt. Nirupama and Others (supra) has categorically held that in proceedings under the - 7 - MFA No. 8389 of 2022 Employees' Compensation Act, the statutory cap on monthly wages is no longer required to be applied and the actual monthly wages established by acceptable evidence are liable to be taken into consideration for computing compensation. Therefore, the approach adopted by the Commissioner in capping the monthly wages at ₹8,000/- is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench. 11. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered partly in the affirmative. REG: THE QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION 12. Having regard to the nature of employment, the unrebutted evidence regarding the claimant's avocation and wages, and the fact that the accident occurred in the year 2017, this Court deems it appropriate to reassess the monthly wages of the claimant at Rs.12,000/- for the purpose of computing compensation. The compensation in the case in hand is therefore liable to be recalculated by considering the aforesaid monthly wage of the claimant. 13. In terms of Section 4(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act, the compensation payable is required to be computed by taking 60% of the monthly wages, multiplying the - 8 - MFA No. 8389 of 2022 same by the relevant factor applicable to the age of the employee and thereafter applying the percentage of loss of earning capacity. 14. Since this Court has reassessed the monthly wages of the claimant at Rs.12,000/-, 60% thereof works out to Rs.7,200/-. By applying the relevant factor of 211.79 from the Schedule of the Act and the loss of earning capacity at 19%, the claimant would be entitled to compensation of Rs.2,89,731/- (Rs.7,200/- × 211.79 × 19/100) under the head of "permanent disablement". 15. The compensation of Rs.36,778/- under head of 'Medical Expenses’ and Rs.25,000/- under the head of 'Future Medical Expenses' awarded by the Tribunal remains unaltered as the same is proper and adequate. 16. Thus, the claimant, in modification of the impugned award, would be entitled to the following sums: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (In Rs.) 1. Loss of Earning Capacity 2,89,731 2. Medical Expenses 36,778 3. Future Medical Expenses 25,000 - 9 - MFA No. 8389 of 2022 Total 3,51,509 17. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for compensation of Rs.3,51,509/- as against Rs.2,53,225/- awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from one month after the date of accident till its realization. ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and award dated 25.08.2022 passed in ECA No.3/2018 by the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Kundapura, are modified. (iii) The respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with accrued interest, after deducting the amount already deposited, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS