- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718 MFA No. 201065 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201065 OF 2019 (WC) BETWEEN: 1. SABERABEGUM W/O HAJISAB @ HAJIMALANG BAIRODAGI @ BAIRAMADAGI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, 2. SHREEN D/O HAJISAB @ HAJIMALANG BAIRODAGI @ BAIRAMADAGI, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 3. HAJISAB @ HAJIMALANG S/O AMINSAB BAIRODAGI @ BAIRAMADAGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER, ALL R/O RAMPUR P.A., TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 101. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHAMMAD SIRAJ S/O SINKANDAR KORABU, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SELF EMPLOYED, R/O RAMPUR (PA) UKP, TQ. SINDAGI, DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 101. 2. THE MANAGER LEGAL, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PLOT NO.3, SECTOR 29, GURGAON-122 001, Digitally signed by SHIVALEELA DATTATRAYA UDAGI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718 MFA No. 201065 of 2019 (HARYANA). …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2; R1-SERVED) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.02.2019 PASSED IN ECA NO.3/2016 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION AT SINDAGI. AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM RS.7,69,645/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.16,50,000/- WITH 12% INTEREST. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Being aggrieved by the judgment in ECA No.3/2016 by learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Sindagi, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718 MFA No. 201065 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019, the petitioners therein are before this Court seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that on 31.07.2015, the deceased Mohammad Mosim was working as a driver on the Car bearing No.KA-28/N-6167 owned by respondent No.1 and he was a paid driver. At about 1:30 PM the said vehicle met with an accident and the deceased Mohammad Mosim died during the course of employment. The petitioners, who were the dependents of the deceased approached the learned Commissioner under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act, contending that the deceased was getting a salary of Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as batta. They also contended that the diseased was aged 24 years, was a bachelor and as such petitioners being the dependents are entitled for compensation. 4. The respondent No.1-owner cum employer in his written statement admitted that the diseased was his employee and that he was paid a sum of Rs.8000/- per - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718 MFA No. 201065 of 2019 month and Rs.100 per day as batta. However, the respondent No.1 did not enter the witness box to affirm his contention taken up in the written statement. The learned Commissioner, after enquiry came to the conclusion that there being no material on record to show about the salary of the deceased, concluded that the salary was Rs.7,000/- per month and calculated the compensation amount. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court in this appeal contending that the learned Commissioner could not have reduced the salary below the salary notified under Section 4(1-B) of the E.C. Act. 5. After hearing learned counsels appearing for both the sides, this Court is of the view that the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1-B) of the E.C. Act, provides that in the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the salary being paid, the salary notified under Section 4(1-B) has to be adopted. In other words, the wages notified under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718 MFA No. 201065 of 2019 Section 4(1-B) of the Act is the lower limit of the salary while awarding the compensation. Under these circumstances, the learned Commissioner could not have reduced the wages below the wages notified under Section 4(1-B) of the Act. 6. Though an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the appellants that Bata of Rs.100/- having been admitted by respondent No.1 is also to be included as salary of the deceased, there is no cogent evidence in respect of the same. The admissions given by respondent No.1 in his written statement cannot act to the prejudice of respondent No.2- Insurance Company. Therefore, the compensation is recalculated as: Rs.8,000/- x 50% x 218.47=Rs.8,73,880/-. In addition to it, a sum of Rs.5,000/- has to be awarded towards funeral expenses and as such, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.8,78,880/- instead of Rs.7,69,645/- determined by the learned Commissioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718 MFA No. 201065 of 2019 7. Sofar as the interest is concerned, the provisions of Section 3 of the E.C. Act, lay down the principles governing the interest. Therefore, the interest on the above amount shall be paid at the rate of 12% from the 30th day after the date of the accident. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed in part. The petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.8,78,880/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from 30th day after the date of accident till its deposit before the learned Commissioner. Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of Eight weeks. Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE SMP,TSN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 CT: AK