HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.547 OF 2020 (ECA) BETWEEN: 1. NAGENDRAPPA S/O LATE SANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. JAYAMMA @ JAYALAKSHMI W/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 3. VIRUPAKSHA S/O NAGENDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING R/A HOSAKALANAHALLI VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 001 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRAKASHA.H.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ANIL BABU.K S/O UDDANDA RAO, MAJOR, R/O 1645/30, MUDDALLI BUILDING, NEAR VIDYANAGARA, DAVANAGERE-577 005. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 2 - 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., NO.1, IST FLOOR, MAGNUR COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, DAVANAGERE-577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. D.VIJAYA KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2 [ABSENT]; VIDE ORDER DATED 19.04.2022-NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THE MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 08.05.2019 PASSED IN ECA NO.17/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND V MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Court had after hearing the matter briefly on 19.01.2026 passed the following order: “1. The present appeal seeks to challenge an order dated 08.05.2019 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & V Addl. MACT, Davangere in E.C.A.No.17/2019 [hereinafter ‘Impugned Order’]. By the Impugned Order, a petition u/s.22 of Employees Compensation Act filed by the appellants-petitioners has been allowed and compensation of Rs.8,78,880/- along with interest at 12% per annum has been granted. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants are entitled for enhancement of compensation value on two grounds. Firstly, he submits that the Ex.P-11 Aadhaar Card shows the age of the deceased that he was born in the year 1994 and since HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 3 - the accident took place on 22.12.2017 in terms of Schedule IV of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, for the 23 year old, the multiplier applicable is 219.95. However, the learned Trial Court has wrongly taken the multiplier as 218.47. 3. The second ground of challenge is the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that RW-1 the employer of the deceased was present before the Court as a witness and he submitted that the deceased was earning more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Reliance in this behalf is placed on the evidence of RW-1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he will be placing translated copies of documents which he wishes to rely upon within two weeks from today”. 2. None appears for the respondent No.2, despite service. Given the pendency of this matter for the last six years, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today. 3. The only issue that arises in the present appeal is, Whether the compensation awarded is in accordance with settled legal principles? 4. As stated above, the challenge in the present petition is on two grounds. Firstly, that the age of the deceased was not 24 years but 23 years old. Secondly, that the deceased was earning a salary of more than Rs.30,000/- p.m. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 4 - 5. So far as concerns first contention, the learned counsel for the appellant seeks to rely upon the Aadhar Card which shows that the deceased was born in the year 1994. Although copy of the Aadhar Card has not been placed on record, a certified physical copy has been handed over by the learned counsel for the appellant. The Aadhar Card only shows the year of birth and does not show date of birth. Thus the petitioner has been unable to prove his date of birth. Learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that he is not pressing this ground. 6. So far as concerns, the second contention that the deceased was earning more than Rs.15,000/- p.m. The learned counsel has relied upon the evidence of RW1, his employer. The translated copy of evidence of RW1 is also placed on record. The employer in his evidence sets out that Raghu @ Raghuveer, the deceased had been working as an operator of paddy cutting machine over a year and he was being paid monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- and daily allowance of Rs.200/-. The relevant extract is set out below: “Raghu @ Raghuveer had been working as a paddy cutting machine operator for me for a year, and I was paying him a monthly salary of Rs. 15,000/- and a HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 5 - daily allowance of Rs. 200/-. The said deceased Raghu @ Raghuveer came as a paddy cutting machine operator under my direction, and the said accident occurred while he was working. The Eicher vehicle KA-50-5319 belonged to me. I had insured my vehicle with the second respondent, and on the day of the accident, the insurance was in force, covering all types of compensation responsibilities”. [Emphasis Supplied] 7. The cross examination conducted by the respondent/ Insurance Company has not elucidated anything to disbelieve the testimony of Respondent No.1 employer. The learned Trial Court has while examining this aspect of the matter has acknowledged the fact that RW1 has stated that prior to the accident, he was working as coolie and paddy cutting machine operator and used to earn monthly wages as set out above. The learned Trial Court has found that other than oral evidence no other document has been produced with regard to wages and hence has awarded wages in terms of the gazette notification. The relevant extract of the Impugned Order is as below: “The P.W.1 in his cross examination has admitted himself and his wife as well as his son were doing coolie work, but he has denied that they were not the dependents of the deceased and he has admitted that they have not produced any document to show about the avocation and income of the deceased. The R.W.1 being the employer of the deceased in his evidence has stated that prior to the incident the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 6 - deceased was working as a coolie cum operator in paddy cutting machine and he used to pay monthly wages of Rs.15,000/- and Rs. 200/- per day as batha. But in his cross-examination has categorically admitted that he has not produced any document to show prior to the incident he was paying Rs. 15,000/- to the deceased as monthly wages. So, one thing is clear except the oral evidence either the petitioners nor the respondent No.1 have not produced any document to corroborate the income of the deceased as stated in the claim petition. So, in the absence of the materials from the petitioners and respondent No.1 it is very difficult to belief the monthly wages of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, this court drawn its attention on Gazette Notification of Central Government which reads as under:- "Ministry of labour and employment dated 31.5.2000 Sec.S.O.1258(E) in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Sec. (1B) of Sec.4 of ECA 1923 (8 of 1923) Central Government hereby specifies, for the purpose of Sub Sec. (1) of the said Section, following amount as monthly wages from the date of publication in the official gazette i.e., Rs.8,000/- per month.” So, as per the gazette notification the Central Government has fixed monthly wages of Rs.8,000/-.” [Emphasis supplied] 8. A perusal of the Impugned Order as well as the examination-in-chief of Respondent No.1 shows that the cause of action that arose was with respect to an accident in a paddy cutting machine. The accident has been described in the Impugned Order in the following manner: “On 20.12.2017 the deceased N.Raghu, operator Chandru and driver were took the paddy crop cutting HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 7 - machine in the Eicher van bearing No.KA-50-5319, to attend the paddy crop cutting work in the paddy field of Komati subbanna of Yerragunta village were proceeding on road by the side of canal, at about 12,45 p.m, reached near Baggappagari Pedda Thippa Reddy's Field of Brahmhasamudra village, Kanekal Mandal noticed 11 current wires were hanging across the road. Then the deceased Raghu and Chandru got down from the Eicher van and the deceased Raghu instructed about the electrical wires, but the driver deaf ear about the instructions and moved the vehicle negligently. Due to which the electrical wire touch the paddy harvest machine and pass the electricity over the vehicle and touch the left side door of the Eicher van to the right shoulder of the deceased”. [Emphasis Supplied] 9. A similar narration also forms part of evidence of RW-1 which is extracted below: “In my Eicher vehicle KA-50-5319, with a paddy cutting machine, the deceased Raghu @ Raghuveer and Chandru were seen taking the paddy cutting machine to Yeragunta village, Kaneekal Taluk, Andhra Pradesh with the driver on 20-12-2017. On 22-12-2017, around 12:45 PM, while taking the paddy cutting machine near Bagappanavar's Peddatippareddy's land near the canal, the driver was taking the Eicher vehicle when the 11 KV wires got entangled with the paddy cutting machine causing a complete electrical shock to the Eicher vehicle, resulting in Raghu @ Raghuveer getting electrocuted and dying”. [Emphasis Supplied] 10. Thus, it is undisputed that the accident took place on the paddy cutting machine. It is also not disputed that the HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 8 - deceased was on the machine and was driving the machine along with the other operator Chandru. The employer has also affirmed this. In addition, the testimony of the employer (RW-1) in his examination-in-chief, that the deceased was working as a paddy cutting operator for a year and paying him monthly salary of Rs.15,000/- apart from daily allowance of Rs.200/- and that the accident occurred while he was working, and that on the date of the accident, the policy was in force, covering all types of compensation. 11. Accordingly in view of the aforegoing discussion, this Court deems it apposite to modify the Impugned Award by calculating the compensation of the deceased by awarding compensation on the salary proved by the claimants, in the following manner: Sl. No. Particulars Amount 1 ₹15,000/-x50%=7,500/-x 218.47 16,38,525-00 2 Funeral expenses 5,000-00 Total 16,43,525-00 Less: Compensation awarded by the Tribunal 8,78,880-00 Enhanced compensation 7,64,645-00 HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 9 - 12. Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following directions: ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed. (ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 08.05.2019 in ECA No.17/2018 passed by the learned I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & V Addl. MACT, Davanagere, is modified to the extent that enhanced compensation is awarded in a sum of Rs.7,64,645/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to the compensation that has been awarded by the Tribunal. (iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Award of the Tribunal remains undisturbed. (iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced compensation with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the judgment. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7699 MFA No. 547 of 2020 - 10 - (v) The amount in deposit by the Insurance Company before this Court shall be transmitted to the Tribunal within a week. (vi) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly. (vii) The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this judgment to the concerned Tribunal, along with its records. (viii) The Registry is also directed to convey a copy of this order to the Respondent/Insurance Company. (ix) No order as to costs. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SNB/RJ/BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA