- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3746 MFA No. 201584 of 2022 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. 201584 OF 2022 (ECA) BETWEEN: 1. SHARANAGOUDA S/O SAHEBGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: ASKI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 128. 2. SHANTAMMA W/O SAHEBGOUDA BIRADAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O: ASKI, TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA – 586 128. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O NINGANAGOUDA HOSAMANI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR, R/O: LAXMI NIVAS, BANJARA NAGAR, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. Digitally signed by RAMESH MATHAPATI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3746 MFA No. 201584 of 2022 2. THE MANAGER LEGAL, THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, DARBAR SQUARE SECOND FLOOR, RAM MANDIR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA – 586 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.05.2022 PASSED IN ECA NO.28/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA. AND TO MODIFY THE SAID JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.4,85,200/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3746 MFA No. 201584 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT Challenging judgment and award dated 27.05.2022 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Vijayapura, at Vijayapura (for short, 'Commissioner') in ECA no.28/2020, this appeal is filed. 2. Sri Koujalagi C.L., learned counsel submitted, appeal was by claimants for enhancement of compensation on sole ground, namely Commissioner’s error in considering monthly income of deceased at Rs.9,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-, while calculating loss of dependency. It was submitted Shivanand S/o Sharanagouda Biradar, aged 23 years was employed as driver by respondent no.1 (‘employer’, for short) on monthly wages of Rs.20,000/-. It was submitted, on 27.05.2018, when as per instructions of employer deceased was driving jeep no.KA-28/C-2408 towards Zalaki Market, near Allagi Cross, an unknown vehicle dashed to his vehicle and caused accident. As a result he sustained severe injuries and died. Seeking compensation for loss of dependency due to his untimely death, his parents filed claim under Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act, against employer and insurer. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3746 MFA No. 201584 of 2022 3. 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 stated, vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 and claimed indemnification. Respondent no.2-insurer filed objection denying claim averments. 4. Based on pleadings, Commissioner framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant no.1 examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to Ex.P9. Insurer examined its Manager as RW.1 and got marked Exs.R1 and R2. 5. On consideration, Commissioner held, accident had occurred in course of and out of employment and claimants were entitled for compensation of Rs.10,14,800/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 27.06.2018, from insurer. Assailing same, appeal was filed. 6. It was submitted while passing impugned award, Commissioner erred in taking monthly income of claimant at Rs.9000/-, instead of Rs.20,000/-. Therefore substantial question of law about manner of assessment of monthly income would arise for consideration. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3746 MFA No. 201584 of 2022 7. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, for respondent no.2 supported award and opposed appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned judgment and award and record. 9. With consent of learned counsel for parties, appeal was heard and taken up for final disposal. 10. In this appeal, claimants are seeking for enhancement of compensation only insofar as monthly income of employee. In claim petition, they asserted that deceased Shivanand was employed as driver on monthly salary of Rs.20,000/-. However, employer denied monthly income. It is seen, incident occurred on 27.05.2018 which is after coming into force of Amendment Act no.45 of 2009, amending Employees Compensation Act (‘EC Act’ for short) by inserting Section 4(1B) therein. In terms thereof, Central Government was authorized to notify income for purposes of Section 4(1) of EC Act and on 31.01.2010, Central Government had issued notification no.SO 1258 (E), notifying Rs.8,000/- as monthly income for purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of EC Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3746 MFA No. 201584 of 2022 11. Despite same, Commissioner determined monthly income at Rs.9,000/-. Same cannot under circumstances be stated to be on lower side leaving scope for enhancement. Consequently, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. 12. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE msr List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42