- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7039 MFA No. 200478 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200478 OF 2017 (WC) BETWEEN: 1. ERAMMA W/O LATE VEERBHADRAYYA IKALKI MATH, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD 2. SWETHA D/O.LATE VEERBHADRAYYA IKALKI MATH, AGE: 18 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT 3. SIDDALINGAYYA S/O. LATE VEERBHADRAYYA IKALKI MATH, AGE: 16 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (MINOR) 4. SHARNAYYA S/O. LATE VEERBHADRAYYA IKALKI MATH, AGE: 14 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT (MINOR) 5. MALLIKARJUNAYYA @ MALLAYYA SWAMY S/O. SHANTAYYA IKALKI MATH, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER 6. KASTURIBAI W/O. MALLIKARJUNAYYA @ MALLAYYA SWAMY IKALKI MATH, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD (DECEASED ON 01.12.*2020 AS PER ORDER OF THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 04.12.2025, LRS’ ARE ALREADY ON RECORD) (PETITIONER NO.3 & 4 ARE BEING MINORS THIS PETITION IS FILED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND NATURAL MOTHER PETITIONER NO.1) *Retyped & replaced v/c/o dated 04.12.2025. *Corrected vide Court order dated 10.02.2026 and 04.12.2025. Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7039 MFA No. 200478 of 2017 ALL ARE R/O ADARSH NAGAR (COLONY) SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585 105. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SANKET APPAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INDUMATI W/O. SHANKAR KATTOLLI, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: TRANSPORT BUSINESS & HOUSE HOLD, R/O: H.NO.7-1101, OPP: HANUMANTHRAYA TEMPLE, BANK COLONY, NEHRU GUNJ, KALABURAGI-585 104. 2. THE MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS. CO. LTD., BILGUNDI COMPLEX, OPP: VIDHAN SOUDHA, KALABURAGI-585 102. ON BEHALF OF: ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INS. CO. LTD., "SUNDARAM TOWERS" 45 & 46 WHITE ROAD CHENNAI-600 044, REG. OFFICE-21, PATULLOS ROAD, CHENNAI-600 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF EC ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-25.01.2017 PASSED BY I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE KALABURAGI IN ECA NO.1260/2014 AND AWARD COMPENSATION OF Rs.25,00,000/- OVER AND ABOVE THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY THE TRIBUNAL BELOW. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7039 MFA No. 200478 of 2017 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed against the Judgment and award dated 25.01.2017 passed in ECA No.126/2014 by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Kalaburagi (for short ‘the tribunal’) seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. One Veerbhadrayya Ikalki Math died in a accident on 07.03.2012. His wife, children and parents filed claim petition before the tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- along with interest. The tribunal after considering the entire evidence on record, awarded a sum of Rs.4,39,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, the claimants have preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 3. In the present appeal it is contended that, though it was stated that, the income of the deceased was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7039 MFA No. 200478 of 2017 Rs.15,000/-, per month and batta of Rs.500/- per day, the tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month. Further it is also stated that, as per the gazette notification of the Government of India, minimum wage is to be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. The deceased was aged 36 years as on the date of the death as per the Ex.P.9 i.e. postmortem report. But the tribunal has taken the age of the deceased as 43 years. Further learned counsel for the claimant submits that, Rs.5,000/- is to be awarded towards funeral expenses and the interest is to be granted from the date of the accident till the date of realization. 4. Heard the arguments from both sides. 5. As per the gazette notification of the Government of India, income of the deceased is to be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. In view of Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, 50% i.e. Rs.4,000/- of the income is to be considered while calculating the compensation. The tribunal has relied upon the date of birth mentioned in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7039 MFA No. 200478 of 2017 driving licence, as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that his age is to be taken as 36 years basing on the postmortem report is not accepted. Since a valid document is produced i.e. driving licence, the question of considering the age of the deceased as per the postmortem report does not arise. It needs no interference. Hence, the relevant factor is 175.54. The calculation is as under: Rs.4,000/- X 175.54 = Rs.7,02,160/- 6. The total compensation is Rs.7,02,160/- + Rs.5,000/- totaling to Rs.7,07,160/-. 7. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed in part; (ii) The compensation awarded by the tribunal in a sum of Rs.4,39,000/- is enhanced to Rs.7,07,160/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7039 MFA No. 200478 of 2017 (iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest within one month from the date of this order; (iv) On such deposit, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each to claimant Nos.5 and 6 and they are permitted to withdraw the said amount; claimant No.1 is the wife of the deceased, she is permitted to withdraw the balance amount along with interest; (v) The claimants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period of 530 days in filing the appeal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7039 MFA No. 200478 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI [ERAMMA W/O LATE VEERBHADRAYYA AND ORS AND OTHERS VS. INDUMATI W/O SHANKAR KATTOLLI AND ANR AND ANOTHER] 04.12.2025 (VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL ORDER ON ‘BEING SPOKEN TO’ A “being spoken to” memo was filed on 03.12.2025 by the counsel for the appellant, in which it is stated that the appeal was allowed on 20.11.2025 and appellant No.6 had deceased. But her name was not deleted in the cause title of the appeal memo, hence, compensation was apportioned to her. Therefore, a modification is requested. Appellant No.6 was died on 01.12.2020 and the application was filed on 19.11.2025 and allowed on 20.11.2025. But on the very same day, the judgment was pronounced, as such, the amendment of the cause title was not carried out. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to delete the name of appellant No.6, who is the mother and appellant No.5 is her husband, hence, he is permitted to withdraw the said amount apportioned in her favour. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7039 MFA No. 200478 of 2017 Accordingly, appellant No.5 is permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, as the appellant No.6 is the wife of appellant No.5, as stated above. In view of the above, memo for ‘Being spoken to’ is allowed. Appellant’s counsel is permitted to carry out the amendment in the cause title of the appeal memo. Respondent No.2 has stated that she has already filed the vakalath, hence, registry is directed to verify the same. This order shall be treated as part and parcel of the judgment dated 20.11.2025. Sd/- ( P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE THM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1