- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20224 MFA No. 391 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5733 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 391 OF 2017 (WC) C/W. MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5733 OF 2016 (WC) IN MFA No. 391/2017 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAJENDRA S M S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S. 1(A). PUSHPA M, W/O LATE RAJENDRA S.M, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT 12, 12TH MAIN, SHIVANAGARA, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. 1(B). SUVARNA PRASANNA, D/O LATE RAJENDRA S.M, W/O L PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 5/1, MARUTHI NILAYA, 10TH MAIN, SHIVANAGARA, VTC BANGALORE, PO RAJIJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. 1(C). GIRISH R, S/O LATE RAJENDRA S.M, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, GG PALYA, BANGALORE NORTH, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022. …APPELLANTS Digitally signed by MEGHA MOHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20224 MFA No. 391 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5733 of 2016 (BY SRI. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC BANGALORE CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. H.R. RENUKA, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.02.2016 PASSED IN ECA NO.173/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE XXI ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE, & XIX ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BANGALORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 5733/2016 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, CENTRAL OFFICE, SHANTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 027, BY ITS DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. RENUKA H.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. RAJENDRA S M S/O LATE MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S. 1(A). PUSHPA M, W/O LATE RAJENDRA S.M, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT 12, 12TH MAIN, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20224 MFA No. 391 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5733 of 2016 SHIVANAGARA, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. 1(B). SUVARNA PRASANNA, D/O LATE RAJENDRA S.M, W/O L PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 5/1, MARUTHI NILAYA, 10TH MAIN, SHIVANAGARA, VTC BANGALORE, PO RAJIJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 010. 1(C). GIRISH R, S/O LATE RAJENDRA S.M, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.17, 2ND FLOOR, 4TH BLOCK, GG PALYA, BANGALORE NORTH, YESHWANTHPUR, BENGALURU - 560 022. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.02.2016 PASSED ON ECA NO.173/14 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & 19TH ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.9,31,850/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF INCIDENT TILL ITS REALISATION. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20224 MFA No. 391 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5733 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in E.C.A. No.173/2024 dated 12.02.2016 by the XXI Additional Small Causes Judge & MACT (SCCH-23) at Bengaluru both the claimants and the Corporation are before this court. The claimants appeal is MFA.No.391/2017 and the Corporation appeal is MFA.No.5733/2016. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the accident had occured in the year 2001 and the claim petition is filed in the year 2011. The issue of limitation was never the issue and even before the Tribunal also no such issue was raised. No issue was framed and there was no occasion to the claimants to adduce any evidence or advance arguments on this issue. It is submitted that the amount that is taken by the Tribunal as salary is Rs.8,563/- per month and it is submitted that the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal, was not a reasonable one and needs to be enhanced. It is further submitted that whether the application is filed or not when it is an admitted fact that the employee had sustained the disability, he is entitled for compensation. All these aspects were not at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20224 MFA No. 391 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5733 of 2016 all considered by the Tribunal. Because of this accident, he had lost his future prospects and also he had to depend on someone and his quality of life is effected. In those circumstances, he is entitled for the compensation and the compensation that was awarded by the Tribunal is not a reasonable compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that the petition is filed under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. It is submitted that Section 4(b) deals with the permanent total disablement results from the injury. As per the same, an amount equal to 60% of the monthly wages of the injured multiplied by the relevant factor. It is submitted that the accident had taken place in the year 2001 and as on that day, the salary as per the notification is Rs.4,000/- and 60% of the salary comes to Rs.2,400/- and as per the evidence of the doctor, employee had suffered disability of 35% then the amount would come to Rs.1,200/-. As per the age, the factor would be 178.49 and even if that way if it is calculated, it would come to Rs.2,14,188/-. It is submitted that as per the order passed by the Co-Ordinate bench of this Court, she has placed before this Court and it is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20224 MFA No. 391 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5733 of 2016 stated that from 1st April, 2001, the data that is placed before this Court is with regard to the salaries from 01.04.2001 to 06.04.2004, an amount of Rs.6,784/- per month was paid and finally in the month of February, 2004, the salary that was given to him is Rs.8,293/-. It is submitted that the employee had retired in the year *2018 and the change of category was in the year 2003 to that of the helper. However, he has been paid the salary of the driver. It is submitted that both on the ground of limitation as well as the fact that he is receiving the salary, he is not entitled for any compensation. 4. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The accident occurred in the year 2001 and this application seeking compensation is filed in the year 2011. As per the Trial Court Record, the ECA is numbered in the year 2014 and it is filed in the year 2011. It is the case that the accident had taken place on 01.04.2001 and the employee has been making requests to the respondent for compensation and it is the case of the Corporation that they have been paying him the salary and change of category was done and though category is to the helper but he is receiving the salary of the driver. Earlier when this matter came up * Corrected vide court order dated: 07/07/2025. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20224 MFA No. 391 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5733 of 2016 before the Court, it was stated by the counsel for the Corporation that they are ready to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. Later, it is submitted that when they have gone through the records, they came to know that he has been paid the salary till his retirement in the year *2018. As such, they are no more coming forward with that proposal. 5. First of all, coming to the aspect of limitation, no doubt there is a delay with regard to filing of the application for compensation. But at the same time, the fact that the employee was injured and the evidence is there on record to show that during the course of employment he had sustained the injuries and the Tribunal has also not framed any issue with regard to the limitation. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that cannot be agitated or looked into by this Court at this point of time in the light of the admitted facts. Then coming to the calculation that was made by the Tribunal, it was done in case of a motor accident claim. Section 4 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 deals with the 'amounts of compensation'. Section 4(b) deals with “where permanent total disablement results from the injury”, an amount equal to 60% of the monthly wages of the injured * Corrected vide court order dated: 07/07/2025. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20224 MFA No. 391 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5733 of 2016 multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- whichever is more. In this case, while granting the compensation, the Tribunal had taken the salary of Rs.8,563/- and 60% was taken as Rs.5,137/- and the factor was taken as 181.37 and accordingly calculated an amount of Rs.9,31,842.78/- which is rounded off to Rs.9,31,850/-. The accident had happened in the year 2001 and as on that day, as per the notification issued by the Government, for the purpose of calculation, salary has to be taken as Rs.4,000/-. Once the amount is taken as Rs.4,000/-, 60% of the said amount comes to Rs.2,400/-. As per the doctor's evidence, the functional disability is 75% and the whole body disability is 35%. It is argued by the learned counsel that functional disability has to be taken as 75%. Whenever calculation with regard to the compensation, the Court will taken into consideration the whole body disability i.e., 35%, it comes to Rs.840/- multiplied by the factor i.e.,178.49 then amount comes to Rs.1,49,931/-. The claimant is entitled for the interest @ 12% p.a from the date of *petition till the date of deposit of the amount. 6. In view of the same, the appeal filed by the Corporation in MFA No.5733/2016 is partly allowed, reducing * Corrected vide court order dated: 07/07/2025. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20224 MFA No. 391 of 2017 C/W MFA No. 5733 of 2016 the compensation from an amount of Rs.9,31,850/- to Rs.1,49,931/-. Consequently, the appeal of the claimants in MFA No.391/2017 is dismissed. i) The amount shall carry interest at 12% per annum from the date of *petition till the date of deposit. ii) Amount in deposit shall be forthwith transferred to the Tribunal. The claimant is at liberty to withdraw the money. iii) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Tribunal, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. iv) No costs. v) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE KA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 * Corrected vide court order dated: 07/07/2025.