- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11065 MFA No. 103269 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 103269 OF 2019 (WC) BETWEEN: PRAVEEN S/O. SANNANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. EX-DRIVER OF THE TATA ACE BEARING REG.NO.KA-34-A-9389, R/O. MAHAVEER RICE MILL, BOMMANAHAL ROAD, ANDRAHAL, BALLARI-583101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. M. AMAREGOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.C.RATHANAMMA W/O. C.RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. OWNER OF THE TATA ACE BEARING REG.NO.KA-34-A-9389, R/O. MANDALU BATTI, NARAYANAPPA NAGAR, ANDRAHAL, TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583101. 2. M/S. ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO LTD., BY ITS MANAGER, SUNDARAM TOWERS, 45 AND 46, WHITES ROAD, CHENNAI-600014. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.Y. KATAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.06.2019, PASSED IN ECA.NO.17/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRINUNAL-V, BALLARI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.06 12:15:52 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11065 MFA No. 103269 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘The Act,’ for short) by the appellant, challenging the judgment and award dated 14.06.2019 passed in ECA.No.17/2017 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT-V, Ballari. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows: 3. On 11.09.2013, as per the directions of respondent No.1, the petitioner was on duty as driver in a goods carriage TATA Ace bearing Reg.No.KA-34/A-9389, and was proceeding from Bengaluru to Ballari. When he reached near Sanikere village, at that time, one Maxi-cab bearing Reg.No.KA-34/A-1222 came from the opposite - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11065 MFA No. 103269 of 2019 direction in a rash and negligent manner, and caused the accident. As a result, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. He incurred a huge medical expenses. He filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Act. 4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, and the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 5. The trial court based on the pleadings of the parties framed the relevant issues. 6. To substantiate his case, the petitioner was examined himself a P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14 Conversly the Insurance Company did not lead any oral evidence and produced documents. The Tribunal, after assessing the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11065 MFA No. 103269 of 2019 verbal and documentary evidence allowed the claim petition in part, vide judgment dated 14.06.2019 and awarded compensation of Rs.3,42,551/- with interest. It is held that respondent Nos.1 and 2, jointly and severally are liable to pay the compensation, and respondent No.2-Insurance Company was directed to deposit the compensation amount within thirty days from the date of judgment. 7. The petitioner, being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in ECA No.17/2017, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/-, which is on the lower side. The Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- p.m. as per the schedule of the Act. He submits - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11065 MFA No. 103269 of 2019 that Tribunal has taken the disability at 27%, wherein the doctor has opined that, the petitioner has suffered a disability at 80%. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal, and enhance the compensation amount. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper, and do not call for any interference by this court. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. The appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law. 1) Whether the trial Court was justified in determining the income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/- p.m. as per the amendment to the Employees Compensation Act? - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11065 MFA No. 103269 of 2019 Substantial question of law No.1. 12. There is no dispute regarding occurrence of the accident, and injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road traffic accident. The accident occurred during the course of the employment. The Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.7,000/- p.m. The petitioner has not produced the income proof. In the absence of proof of income, the Tribunal should have taken the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- as per the Act. Thus, this court re-assesses the income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- x 60% = Rs.4,800/-. The petitioner was about 28 years old, and the relevant factor applicable to his age group is 211.79. The petitioner has examined the doctor as P.W.2, who has opined that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability at 80%, wherein the Tribunal has taken the permanent disability at 27%, which is on the lower side. Considering the evidence P.W.2, and the medical records, this court re-assesses the permanent disability at 50%. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for compensation of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11065 MFA No. 103269 of 2019 Rs.5,08,296/- (Rs.4,800/- x 211.79 x 50%). The petitioner is also entitled to compensation of Rs.1,02,381/- towards the medical bills. The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,10,677/- as against Rs.3,42,551/- awarded by the trial Court. The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,68,126/-. In view of the above discussion, substantial question of law No.1 is answered in the negative. 13. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed in part. ii) The judgment and award dated 14.06.2019 passed in ECA.No.17/2017 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member MACT- V, Ballari is hereby modified. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11065 MFA No. 103269 of 2019 iii) The petitioner is entitled to an enhanced compensation of Rs.2,68,126/- with interest at the rate of 12% after one month from the date of the accident till realisation of the amount. iv) The trial Court records, and the amount in deposit, if any, shall be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE MBS CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30