- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010437642021 NC: 2026:KHC:37880 MFA No. 6115 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6115 OF 2021(ECA) BETWEEN: 1. THE MANAGER FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD PADSENA, NO.18/1 (OLD NO. 125/A) 100 FEET ROAD, 1ST BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR, JAYANAGARA WARD NO. 62 BANGALORE - 560 011 2. THE MANAGER FUTURE GENERAL INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.31, 3RD AND 4TH FLOOR, ABOVE CROMA SHOWROOM, SHRAVANEE KRISHNA MANSION 100 FEET ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, JAYANAGARA BANGALORE - 560 011 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. B.C SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MADHAVAN S/O MURUGAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT 291, 7TH CROSS S.S.A ROAD, HEBBAL Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010437642021 NC: 2026:KHC:37880 MFA No. 6115 of 2021 CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 032 SINCE DEAD REPRESENTATIVES OF R1 1a) SMT. SELVI.G W/O LATE MADHAVAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 1b) KUM. BHARATHI D/O LATE MADHAVAN AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 1c) SMT. SUDHA W/O SRI. SANJAY AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R-1(a) TO (c) ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.291, 7TH CROSS, S.S.A.ROAD HEBBAL, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI BANGALORE-560 032. 2. DATTATRI S S/O RAGHUNATH RAO R/O 02, 1ST CROSS, MUNESHWARA BLOCK, C.N HALLI, BENGALURU - 32 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SURESH M LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR LR'S OF R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 05/06/2026 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT,1923 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 07.04.2021 PASSED IN E.C.A NO. 22/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AND ACMM, BENGALURU CITY, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 7,22,756/- WITH INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT P.A. FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT TILL ITS REALIZATION. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010437642021 NC: 2026:KHC:37880 MFA No. 6115 of 2021 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT The Insurance Company has preferred the appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 07.04.2021 passed in ECA No.22/2018 by the VI Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes & Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City (for brevity, "the Commissioner"). 2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are that the claimant was employed under respondent No.1-employer as a driver of the motor cab bearing registration No.KA-03-AA-4459. On 19.06.2017 at about 9.00 a.m., while driving the said motor cab from Bengaluru to Kanyakumari, near Gangai Kondan Checkpost on the four-lane Madurai–Thirunelveli Road, the driver of Bus bearing registration No.TN-10-AN-0281, which was proceeding ahead of the claimant's vehicle, applied the brakes suddenly without giving any signal. Consequently, the claimant lost control over the motor cab and collided - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010437642021 NC: 2026:KHC:37880 MFA No. 6115 of 2021 with the rear right side of the bus. As a result of the impact, the claimant sustained a comminuted fracture of the left forearm, injuries to the wrist and head, and other grievous injuries all over the body. Since, the accident occurred during the course of and arising out of his employment, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation against the employer and the insurer. 3. The Commissioner, upon assessment of oral and documentary evidence on record, partly allowed the claim petition and directed the appellant/insurer to pay compensation. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the insurer has preferred this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel Sri. B.C Shivanne Gowda., for the appellant-insurer and the learned counsel Sri. Suresh M Latur., for legal heirs of respondent No.1/claimant and perused the materials on record. 5. Apart from urging several other grounds, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant–insurer primarily contended that the Commissioner erred in - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010437642021 NC: 2026:KHC:37880 MFA No. 6115 of 2021 assessing the loss of earning capacity at 39% and consequently awarding compensation on that basis. It is submitted that PW.2 - Doctor, had not issued any disability certificate specifying either the percentage of permanent disability or the extent of loss of earning capacity suffered by the claimant. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for legal heirs of respondent No.1 contended that, upon a proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner has rightly awarded compensation and directed the appellant–Insurer to pay the same, which does not call for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the legal heirs of respondent No.1 so also perused the documents available on record. 8. As could be gathered from records, the facts relating to the existence of the employer-employee - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010437642021 NC: 2026:KHC:37880 MFA No. 6115 of 2021 relationship between the claimant and respondent No.1 and the occurrence of the accident during the course of employment are not in dispute in the instant case. The primary contention of the appellant is that, in the absence of a disability certificate on record, the Commissioner has erred in awarding compensation by assessing the 39 % disability to the whole body. 9. The aforesaid contention of the appellant–insurer does not merit acceptance. PW.1, the injured claimant, has categorically deposed regarding the injuries sustained by him in the accident arising out of and during the course of his employment and the difficulties faced by him on account of the said injuries. PW.3 - Doctor, has also spoken to the nature of injuries, the resultant disability, and the functional difficulties suffered by the claimant. The evidence of PW.3 fully corroborates the testimony of PW.1. 10. Further, Exs.P.16 and P.19, being the inpatient records and case sheet, disclose that the claimant underwent inpatient treatment from 23.06.2017 to - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010437642021 NC: 2026:KHC:37880 MFA No. 6115 of 2021 09.08.2017 and again from 04.09.2017 to 09.09.2017, during which period he underwent surgical intervention with implants in situ. Ex.P8 to P11 reflects the injuries sustained by the claimant and the opinion of the PW.3 - Doctor based on these certificates. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly establishes that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and, as a consequence thereof, is unable to discharge his duties in the same manner as prior to the accident. PW.3 has assessed the permanent disability to the whole body at 39% and has deposed that the fractures have united. However, the claimant has sustained type II open comminuted intraarticular fracture distal radius and ulna (left) sided and he underwent surgery in the form of wound debridement and thorough wash + primary stabilization with wrist spanning Ex fix under GA on 01.07.2017, wound debridement on 10.07.2017, wound debridement and flap coverage on 01.08.2017, wound debridement and stablilization on 05.09.2017 at Mallige Hospital. On the basis of the said evidence, the Commissioner has rightly assessed the permanent disability - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010437642021 NC: 2026:KHC:37880 MFA No. 6115 of 2021 at 39% to the whole body. Hence, the contention of the appellant–insurer that the Commissioner erred in assessing the disability at 39% to the whole body is devoid of merit. 11. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the Commissioner was fully justified in assessing the permanent disability to the whole body at 39% and in determining the compensation by applying the appropriate factor in accordance with law. The findings recorded by the Commissioner are based on the evidence available on record and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in the present appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 12. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Commissioner for disbursement in accordance with the award of the Commissioner. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46