- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11105 MFA No. 102432 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 102432 OF 2015 (WC-) BETWEEN: 1. MANJUNATH MUKAPPA HAVALI AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER NOW NIL R/O. SAVANUR, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SMT. SHAILA BELLIKATTI, ADV) AND: 1. PANDURANGAGOUDA S/O. HUMANTHGOUDA GUDISAGAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: OWNER OF GOODS LORRY BEARING NO. KA 27/A-6222, R/O. BUDUWARPETI, SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE ROYAL SUNDRAM ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD., SUBRAMANYAM BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, 1ST CLUB HOUSE ROAD ANNASALAYA, CHENNAI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.K. KAYAKAMATH, ADV FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2013 PASSED IN PRA:SOM:W:C:N:F-44/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION & SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2025.09.10 12:22:30 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11105 MFA No. 102432 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This appeal is filed by the petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner and the Labour Officer for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri District, Haveri (‘the Commissioner’ for short) vide order dated 30.05.2013 in WCNF No.44/2012, seeking an enhancement of compensation. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: 2.1. The petitioner was working as a Cleaner in the respondent No.1’s lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-27/A-6222. On 21.12.2011, as per the directions and instructions of respondent No.1, he went to Sangli in the lorry and while returning, he stopped the lorry to go for natural call. While returning, he checked the lorry tyre, while boarding the lorry, the driver of the lorry immediately started the lorry and drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11105 MFA No. 102432 of 2015 petitioner fell down and the right wheel of the lorry passed over the left leg of the petitioner and he sustained injuries. He has spent a huge amount towards medical and other expenses and it is contended that the accident occurred during the course of employment. The petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (‘the Act’ for short). Hence, prayed to allow the claim petition. 3. The owner of the lorry remained unrepresented and he was placed ex-parte. The Insurance Company of the lorry filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that, there exists no relationship between the owner and the petitioner as the employer and the employee and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 4. The Commissioner, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11105 MFA No. 102432 of 2015 5. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1 and examined the Doctor as PW-2 and marked fourteen documents as Exs.P1 to P14. The Insurance Company did not lead any oral or documentary evidence. 6. The Commissioner, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a compensation of Rs.2,78,926/- with interest and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 7. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner, filed this appeal seeking for enhancement. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11105 MFA No. 102432 of 2015 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, the Commissioner has committed an error in considering the income of the petitioner as Rs.4,200/- even though the deceased was earning Rs.11,000/-. It is contended that the deceased was earning the salary of Rs.8,000/- per month along with per day batta of Rs.100/-. She submits that, as per Section 4 of the Act, the Commissioner ought to have taken the income at Rs.11,000/-. Further, she submits that, the accident is of the year 2011 and the prices of the essential commodities being high and the Commissioner committed an error in considering 50% of his wages for awarding compensation. Hence, on this ground, she prays to allow the appeal. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the impugned order and prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The appeal - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11105 MFA No. 102432 of 2015 is admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law: Whether the Commissioner was justified in taking the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.4,200/-? 12. There is no dispute about the occurrence of the accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is regarding quantum of compensation. As per Section 4 of the Act, the Commissioner ought to have taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- as the accident is of the year 2011. The petitioner has examined the Doctor as PW-2, who has opined that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability of 62%, wherein the Commissioner has assessed the disability at 60%, which is just and proper. The petitioner was aged about 22 years. The relevant factor applicable to the age of the petitioner is ‘221.37’. Considering the income, disability and age of the petitioner, this Court re- assesses the compensation as follows: Rs.8,000/- x 60% = Rs.4,800/- x 221.37 x 60% = Rs.6,37,546/- as against - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11105 MFA No. 102432 of 2015 Rs.2,78,926/-. The petitioner is also entitled to medical expenses of Rs.21,286/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,58,832/-. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law in the affirmative. 13. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed-in-part; ii. The impugned order dated 30.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner in WCNF No.44/2012 is hereby modified; iii. The petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.6,58,832/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after one month from the date of accident till the date of realization; iv. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11105 MFA No. 102432 of 2015 v. The petitioner is not entitled for interest for a period of 706 days as per order dated 22.11.2016; vi. The Office is directed to transmit the records to the Office of the Commissioner, forthwith. vii. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE PA CT: BSB | List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16