- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6386 MFA No. 1151 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2024 (ECA) BETWEEN: 1. MOHAMMED RAFIQUE, S/O LATE U. ABDULLA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. MRS. MUMTAZ MOHAMMED RAFIQUE, W/O MOHAMMED RAFIQUE, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. TASHREEF MOHAMMED RAFIQUE, S/O MOHAMMED RAFIQUE, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O D. NO.16-9-526/30, MAHARAJA HEIGHTS, FLAT NO.704, 7TH FLOOR, NEAR INDIRA HOSPITAL, FALNIR, MANGALURU - 575 001. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI GURUPRASAD B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. HESHAN AHMED, S/O UCHIL ABDUL HAMEED, ADULT, R/AT HANEEFA MANZIL, SOMESHWARA, UCHILA, ULLAL MANGALORE - 575. 2. THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., IV FLOOR, CRYSTAL ARCADE, NEAR HOTEL ROOPA, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALORE - 575 002, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6386 MFA No. 1151 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOATE FOR R2; VIDE ORDER DATED 24.09.2024, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(A) OF THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.07.2023 PASSED IN ECA NO.37/2015 BY I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dated 12.07.2023 passed in ECA No.37/2015 by I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada (for short ‘the trial Court'). 2. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under; It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a driver under respondent No.1 and on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6386 MFA No. 1151 of 2024 12.05.2015, while he was driving the car bearing registration No.KA-19-ME-3884, lost control of the vehicle and fell into the river. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same. Hence, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased filed a claim petition seeking compensation. 3.1 On service of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel and filed their respective written statements, denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.1 pleaded that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and the deceased had a valid and effective driving licence. It is not in dispute that the relationship of employment exists, whereas respondent No.2 contended that the deceased himself was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, sought for dismissal of the claim petition. 3.2 On the basis of material evidence, both oral and documentary and on hearing the submissions of learned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6386 MFA No. 1151 of 2024 counsels for both parties, the trial Court awarded compensation of Rs.8,84,800/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of incident till its realisation and directed respondent No.2-Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount within one month. 3.3 Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the trial Court, the claimants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 4. It is the vehement contention of the learned counsel for appellants-claimants that the trial Court ought to have been taken the income at Rs.10,000/- per month as the deceased was a driver and earning Rs.10,000/- per month as wages. He further contends that the age of the deceased was 22 years as on the date of occurrence of the accident and the trial Court committed an error by taking the age as 23 years and thereby, instead of taking the relevant factor for multiplication at 221.37, the relevant factor is taken at 219.95, which is an error and the same is illegal and arbitrary, which requires it to be set aside - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6386 MFA No. 1151 of 2024 and modified. On these grounds, he seeks enhancement of compensation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- Insurance Company sustains the judgment and award of the trial Court and contends that the income taken by the trial Court is correct, which does not call for interference as no material is produced to show the income to be Rs.10,000/-, the notional income taken by the trial Court is correct as per Section 4(1B) of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The relevant factor and age taken by the trial Court are correct. Hence, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel for appellants-claimants and learned counsel for respondent-Insurance Company, the substantial questions of law that arises for consideration before this Court are: “(i) Whether the trial Court has committed an error in taking the income at Rs.8,000/- per month instead of Rs.10,000/- per month as claimed by the claimants? - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6386 MFA No. 1151 of 2024 (ii) Whether the trial Court has committed an error in taking the age of the deceased at 23 years instead of taking the age at 22 years? (iii) Whether enhancement of compensation is called for? 7. The occurrence of the accident, involvement of the vehicle and death having occurred due to the road traffic accident while the deceased was in the employment of respondent No.1 are all established and proved by the production of Exs.P1 to P9. 8. Now coming to the aspect of age and relevant factor of the deceased, the age of the deceased is 22 years; as the deceased was born on 27.12.1992, his age would have to be taken as 22 years. The relevant factor would have to be taken at 221.37 rather than 219.95. The income taken by the trial Court is correct at Rs.8,000/- per month, which does not call for interference and the same is retained. Therefore, the compensation that would have - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6386 MFA No. 1151 of 2024 to be awarded to the claimants is Rs.8,85,480/- (Rs.8,000/- - 50% = Rs.4,000/- x 221.37). 9. The trial Court awarded Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses of the deceased. However, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- under this head. 10. In view of the above, the claimants would be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.9,05,480/- as against Rs.8,84,800/- as mentioned in the table below, substantial questions are accordingly answered. Heads Amount in Rs. Loss of dependency 8,85,480-00 Future medical expenses 20,000-00 TOTAL 9,05,480-00 11. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii) The judgment and award dated 12.07.2023 passed in ECA No.37/2015 by the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM at - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6386 MFA No. 1151 of 2024 Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, is hereby modified; iii) The claimants are entitled to the total compensation of Rs.9,05,480/- as against Rs.8,84,800/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of incident till its realisation; iv) The balance compensation amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realisation; v) The respondent-Insurance Company shall pay the balance compensation amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; vi) All other terms and conditions stipulated by the trial Court shall stand intact; vii) The original records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional trial Court forthwith; viii) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN CT: BHK