- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735 MFA No. 202021 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202021 OF 2023 (ECA) BETWEEN: 1. SHANKARGOUDA S/O CHANGONDAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 2. ANASUYA W/O SHANKARGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: NIL, 3. BOURAMMA W/O IRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 4. CHANGONDGOUDA S/O IRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE: 16 YEARS, M/G BY PETITIONER NO.3. 5. BHAGYASHREE D/O IRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE: 14 YEARS, M/G BY PETITIONER NO.3. 6. MALLAMMA D/O IRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE: 16 YEARS, Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735 MFA No. 202021 of 2023 M/G BY PETITIONER NO.3 ALL ARE R/O: YAKKUNDI, TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRABHUGOUDA S/O GANGADHARGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: YAKKUNDI, TQ. AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 113. 2. THE MANAGER LEGAL/CLAIMS, KOTAK MAHINDRA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ZONE-4TH , 8TH FLOOR INFINITY PARK, A.K. VIADYA MARG, MALLAD EAST, MUMBAI STATE. MAHARASHTRA – 400 097. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AT VIJAYAPUR, DATED 23.02.2022 IN ECA NO.32/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735 MFA No. 202021 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT With consent of both parties, matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Challenging judgment and award dated 23.02.2022 passed by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Vijayapura (for short ‘Commissioner) in ECA no.32/2020, this appeal is filed. 3. Sri Sanganagouda V Biradar, learned counsel submitted that appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation on sole ground, namely Commissioner’s error in considering monthly income of deceased at Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/-, while calculating loss of dependency. It was submitted Iranagouda S/o Shankaragouda Biradar, aged 35 years was employed as driver by respondent no.1/owner of car bearing no.KA-28/4644 on monthly wages of Rs.15,000/- along with Bhatta of Rs.100/- per day. It was submitted, on 26.02.2020, when deceased was on duty, driving car on Vijayapura – Jamkahandi road, he lost control over vehicle and it turned turtle. In said accident, he sustained severe injuries and died. Seeking compensation on ground of his untimely - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735 MFA No. 202021 of 2023 death, his parents, wife and children filed claim petition under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act. 4. On contest, owner admitted employment and occurrence of accident in course of and out of employment, but, denied age and income of deceased. It was however stated that vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 and claimed indemnification. Insurer opposed claim petition alleging that owner had not informed insurer as required and vehicle was used for commercial purpose. Insurer also disputed age, income and dependency. 5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.3 was examined as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to 9 were marked. Respondents did not lead any evidence, but got marked insurance policy as RW-1. On consideration, Commissioner held that accident had occurred in course of and out of employment and that claimants were entitled for compensation of Rs.7,84,000/- from insurer with interest at 12% p.m. 6. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735 MFA No. 202021 of 2023 7. It was submitted, while assessing monthly income of deceased, Commissioner erred in determining it at Rs.8,000/-, despite fact that accident occurred after issuance of notification no.S.O.71(E) dated 03.01.2020, stipulating Rs.15,000/- as monthly income for purposes of Section 4(1B) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, substantial question of law arises about assessment of income of deceased being contrary to law. On said ground sought for enhancement. 8. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned counsel for insurer supported award. 9. Heard counsel and perused judgment and award. 10. From above, substantial question of law that would arise for consideration is “Whether assessment of income of deceased by Commissioner is contrary to law?” 11. Same is answered in affirmative for following reasons. 12. Occurrence of accident in course of and out of employment, leading to death of employee aged 35 years is not - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735 MFA No. 202021 of 2023 in dispute. Coverage of insurance as on date of accident is also not in dispute. Only dispute is about monthly income assessed in claim petition. Claimants stated that deceased was working as driver with respondent no.1 on monthly wages of Rs.15,000/- with Bhatta of Rs.100/- per day. Though, claimant did not substantiate same with specific material and employer denied it, in view of issuance of notification by Central Government notifying Rs.15,000/- as monthly income for purpose of Section 4(1B) of Employees Compensation Act, same has to be considered as monthly income. Hence, re- computation of loss of dependency would be Rs.14,21,700/- (Rs.15,000 x 50% x 189.56). 13. Apart from above, tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, which is not altered. 14. Consequently, following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed. ii. Judgment and award dated 23.02.2022 passed by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735 MFA No. 202021 of 2023 for Employees Compensation, Vijayapura in ECA no.32/2020 is modified. Claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.14,46,700/- with interest at 12% p.a. from date of petition i.e. 26.05.2020 till deposit. iii. Except above, remaining part of award of Commissioner is sustained. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26