- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9250 MFA No. 101559 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101559 OF 2022 (ECA -) BETWEEN: 1. SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., CTS NO. 477/1M-1, 1ST FLOOR, VA KALBURAGI HALLMARK, BESIDE INDUS LAND BANK, DESAI CROSS, PINTO ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020(KA) REP BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SURESH S. GUNDI, ADV) AND: 1. SHARANAPPA S/O MALLESHAPPA KAMANUR AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE AT POST. KUNDANURU, TQ. KUSHTAGI DIST. KOPPAL -583277. 2. UMESHA D/O HANUMMAVVA KADEMUNI. AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER AND OWNER R/O. KANADAKUR, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL -583277. …RESPONDENTS (NOTICE TO R1 & R2 ARE SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 03.09.2021, PASSED IN WC NO.4/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KUSHTAGI, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,98,903/- WITH INTEREST AT 8% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL ITS REALIZATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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: 2025.09.01 14:33:23 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9250 MFA No. 101559 of 2022 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the insurance company under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the award passed in WC No.4/2019 dated 03.09.2021 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kushtagi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’, for short). For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows : The case of the claimant, who was working as a hamali, on 04.02.2011 at about 12.30pm, when he along with the cleaner-deceased, and one Umesh, who is the owner cum driver of the Mahendra Bolero Maxi Trax bearing No.KA- 37/8926 were proceeding from Kandakur to Gajendragada, and when they reached near Kushtagi Ashraya colony, at that time, the driver suddenly applied break and lost control - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9250 MFA No. 101559 of 2022 over the vehicle, as a result, the cleaner who was sitting on the left side of the door of the vehicle, lost control and the door was opened, and he fell and sustained head injury, and later he succumbed to the injuries. The claimant-Sharanappa also fell and sustained grievous injuries, and the fractures. Hence, he filed a claim petition contending that he has spent a huge amount towards medical expenses. He has further contended that he was getting an income of Rs.15,000/- per month, and bhatta of Rs.200/- per day. Due to the injuries and fracture, he is not able to work as he did before the accident. Hence, he filed a claim petition, seeking the compensation. 3. Respondent No.1, owner cum driver, appeared through counsel but did not file a written statement. Respondent No.2-insurance company filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claimant was an unauthorized passenger in the respondent No.1 vehicle, and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle, and the claim - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9250 MFA No. 101559 of 2022 petition filed by the claimant, is after a lapse of 8 years from the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the insurance company i.e., respondent No.2. 4. The legal representatives of the deceased, also filed a claim petition. As the claim petitions arose out of the very same accident, both the claim petitions were clubbed together, and separate issues were framed. 5. The claimant to prove his case examined himself as PW.2 and one witness was examined as PW.1 and 30 documents were marked as Exs.P-1 to P-30 conversely. The Manager of respondent No.2- insurance company was examined as RW.1, and marked 2 documents as Exs.R-1 and R2. 6. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 03.09.2021. It is held that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,98,903/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till its realization, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9250 MFA No. 101559 of 2022 and further, directed that respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and the insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and directed respondent No.2 to deposit the award amount within 30 days. 7. Respondent No.2 i.e., the insurance company, aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, preferred this appeal. 8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the insurance company i.e., respondent No.2 before the Tribunal. 9. Despite service of the notice to the respondents, none appear for the respondents herein and remained unrepresented. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company appellant submits that the monthly income of the claimant is taken at Rs.9,000/- per month. He submits that as per Schedule IV of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, a maximum amount of salary that has to be taken is Rs.8,000/- per month, whereas the Tribunal has taken the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9250 MFA No. 101559 of 2022 salary at Rs.9,000/- per month, which is contrary to Schedule IV of the Act of 1923. He also submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side. He submits that the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle as of the date of the accident. Hence, on these grounds, prays to allow the appeal. 11. The substantial questions of law, that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows : i. Whether the Tribunal was justified in considering the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month which is contrary to Section 4 of the Employees’ Compensation Act? ii. What order or award? 12. Substantial question of law (i): The claimant, to prove that he has sustained an injury in the road traffic accident on 04.02.2011, produced a copy of the charge- sheet marked as Ex.P-3, which discloses that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9250 MFA No. 101559 of 2022 driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant was working as a hamali in the said, respondent No.1 vehicle, and getting a monthly income of Rs.15,000/-, and bhatta of Rs.200/- per day. 13. The claimant, to prove his income, has not produced any records. In the absence of income proof, the income of the petitioner has to be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month as per Schedule IV of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Tribunal has taken the salary of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month, which is on the higher side. The age of the claimant was 40 years as of the date of the accident. The proper and relevant factor as per the Schedule IV is 184.17. Out of the income of Rs.8,000/-, if 40% is deducted i.e. Rs.8,000/- x 3,200/-(40%)= Rs.4,800/-. As per Schedule IV of the Act, the relevant factor for the age group of 40 is 184.17. As the claimant has suffered injuries and fracture, the Tribunal has assessed the disability at 20% to the whole body. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9250 MFA No. 101559 of 2022 14. Considering the entire evidence on record, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,76,803/- as against Rs.1,98,903/-. 4,800x184.17x20%=1,76,803/- 15. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law (i) in the affirmative. 16. Substantial question of law (ii): In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Appeal is partly allowed. ii. The judgment and award dated 03.09.2021 passed in WC No.4/2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kushtagi, is hereby modified. The compensation is reduced from Rs.1,98,903/- to Rs.1,76,803/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum one month from the date of accident till its realisation. iii. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, the owner and the insurance company, respectively, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,76,803/-. Respondent No.2, being the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9250 MFA No. 101559 of 2022 insurance company, shall deposit the amount within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment. iv. The amount in excess, if any, shall be refunded to the insurance company. The amount in deposit, shall be transmitted to the Tribunal concerned, forthwith. SD/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE KMV CT: BSB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11