- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6234 MFA No. 4426 of 2021 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. 4426 OF 2021 (ECA) BETWEEN: 1. ANJINAMMA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, W/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA. 2. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS, S/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA @ SRIANA MINOR REP. BY MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1. BOTH ARE R/A KODAMADAGU VILLAGE, PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST.-572 122. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVAKUMAR V M, S/O MARANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A NO.7, VEERAPURA VILLAGE, V AND P, BANK CIRCLE, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST.-572 122. 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1/82-2 IST FLOOR, NANJAMMA'S COMPLEX, VISWANATHAPURAM P.O., THUDIYALUR, METTUPALYAM ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 034, AND REG. Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6234 MFA No. 4426 of 2021 HEAD OFFICE G.E. PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, Y.E.R.W.W.D.A, PUNE-511 006, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SREENIVASA G H, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI MALLIKARJUN REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.01.2018 PASSED IN ECA NO.29/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, PAVAGADA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. 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 appellants/petitioners who are the wife and son of deceased Sriramappa. It is the case of the appellants that the deceased Sriramappa was working as a Driver in a lorry bearing registration No.KA-52-2234 and while in employment and during the course of his employment under respondent No.1 on 19.05.2011, while he was proceeding along with the Cleaner by name Narayanaswamy, the vehicle dashed to the roadside and Sriramappa suffered serious injuries and - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6234 MFA No. 4426 of 2021 succumbed to the said injuries. It is claimed by the claimants that the deceased Sriramappa was earning Rs.400/- per day along with Bata of Rs.150/- per day. Therefore, it is their contention that he was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month in view of the sudden and untimely death of Sriramappa who was aged 28 years, the family is put to irreparable injury, hardship and financial constraint. Hence, appellants/petitioners filed the petition seeking compensation against the respondents who are employer and insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their statement of objections denying the claim of the claimants including denying the relationship of employer and employee and sought for rejection of the petition. 3. On the basis of materials placed on record both oral and documentary, the Commissioner awarded total compensation of Rs.8,62,160/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization of the entire award amount. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6234 MFA No. 4426 of 2021 4. Being aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 5. It is the vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is on the lower side the Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the correct income of the deceased who was a Driver. Deceased was earning Rs.400/- plus + Rs.150/- as bata charges per day and thereby, the total wages that was earned by the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month which has not been considered and the Commissioner has taken the wages at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is arbitrary, illegal and the same requires to be enhanced to Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also vehement contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the Commissioner has committed a gross error in awarding interest at Rs.6% per annum, whereas, interest ought to have been awarded - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6234 MFA No. 4426 of 2021 at 12% per annum. So also the Commissioner has committed an error in awarding the compensation from the date of the claim petition rather than awarding the compensation from the date of accident. On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellants seeks to allow the appeal and consequently, enhance the compensation. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle and learned counsel for Insurance Company contend that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and unreasonable commensurate to the provisions of the statute and as there is no material placed on record by the appellants with regard to the income of deceased, the income as contemplated under the statute for the relevant period is correctly taken at Rs.8,000/- per month as wages, which does not call for interference, so also, learned counsel for the respondents contend that the interest component awarded is just and reasonable does not call for - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6234 MFA No. 4426 of 2021 interference. On these grounds, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 8. substantial questions of law framed by this Court are as under: i) Whether the commissioner has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month instead of taking Rs.15,000/- as claimed? ii) Whether the commissioner has committed an error in applying the interest at 6% per annum rather than taking the interest at 12%? iii) What order? 9. The occurrence of accident on 19.05.2011, involvement of the vehicle while the deceased was driver of the lorry and the deceased being the employee of respondent No.1 are established and proved by production of Exs.P1 to P13. Therefore, there is no much of a quarrel with regard to the relationship between respondent No.1 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6234 MFA No. 4426 of 2021 and the deceased as employer and employee. There is no challenge made to this judgment by respondent No.1- employer. 10. Coming to the question of wages, though the appellants have claimed that the deceased was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month, no material is placed before the Court and evidence is adduced to that effect. Therefore, as per the notional income fixed under the statute by virtue of a Gazette Notification dated 31.05.2010, the wages is required to be taken at Rs.8,000/-, which is correctly taken by the Commissioner, the age of deceased was 28 years on the date of occurrence of accident, the relevant multiplying factor would be 211.79, which is correctly taken in view of Section 4(1)(a) of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, 50% would have to be taken for calculating the compensation amount with multiplying by the relevant factor. Therefore, by taking the income as Rs.8,000/- per - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6234 MFA No. 4426 of 2021 month, 50% of it would be Rs.4,000/- per month multiplied by 211.79 would be Rs.8,47,160/-. 11. The Commissioner has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards 'funeral expenses' of the deceased. Therefore, in all, the compensation awarded is Rs.8,62,160/-. I am in agreement with learned counsel for the appellants that the Commissioner has committed an error in awarding interest at 6% per annum, whereas the interest component requires to be awarded at 12% as contemplated under Section 4A(3)(a). Therefore, the interest component requires to be enhanced from 6% to 12%. The substantial questions of law raised in the present appeal are answered accordingly. 12. The Commissioner has awarded the compensation from the date of the claim petition, whereas the compensation requires to be awarded from the date of occurrence of the accident i.e., 19.05.2011. Under the circumstances, the present appeal requires to be allowed- in-part. Accordingly, I pass the following: - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6234 MFA No. 4426 of 2021 ORDER i) The appeal is allowed-in-part. ii) The judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is modified. iii) The appellants would be entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,62,160/- along with interest at 12% per annum. iv) Respondent No.1-the employer is liable to pay the compensation and he shall pay the compensation from the date of the occurrence of accident i.e., 19.05.2011. v) All other terms stipulated by the Commissioner with regard to apportionment of compensation between appellant Nos.1 and 2 is retained so also with regard to release and disbursement and fixed deposit are retained. vi) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3