- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536512016 NC: 2026:KHC:40238 MFA No. 8641 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8641 OF 2016 (WC-) BETWEEN: SMT. RUKMINI W/O SWAMY KANNU AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O KONDADAKHAN ESTATE SANGAMESHWARA COFFEE ESTATE LTD., CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VENKATE GOWDA K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S KONDADAKHAN ESTATE SANGAMESHWARA COFFEE ESTATE LTD., SANGAMESHWARA POST CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101 REP. BY ITS MANAGER. 2. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE CHIKMAGALURU-577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VISHWANATH P D., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. B.S. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED: 01.03.2016 PASSED ON ECA NO.229/14 ON THE FILE Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536512016 NC: 2026:KHC:40238 MFA No. 8641 of 2016 OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 20.07.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 01.03.2016 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkamagaluru, in ECA No.229 of 2014. 2. The injured claimant met with an accident on 24.08.2010 and filed a claim application claiming compensation under the provisions of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted the compensation of Rs.13,994/-, and directed the second respondent to pay the said sum to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this judgment. The Tribunal also directed the first respondent to pay interest at 12% per annum - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536512016 NC: 2026:KHC:40238 MFA No. 8641 of 2016 on the compensation amount of Rs.13,994/-, after expiry of 30 days of the accident till the date of payment. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant in which it is mainly contended that she was working as a coolie under the first respondent as on the date of accident and drawing a salary of Rs.118.32 per day i.e. Rs.3,500/- per month as per Exhibits R1 and R2 cheque roll and wage register respectively and it is an admission made by the first respondent. But the Tribunal considered that she was getting wages of Rs.1,994/- per month without any basis. She sustained fracture of right wrist as per Ex.P.1 and suffered 25% to the right wrist and whole body disability of 15%. But the Tribunal considered only 8% disability without any basis and the Tribunal ought to have taken the loss of earning capacity as 50%. It is stated that she has spent Rs.15,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses. Thus, requested for enhancement of compensation. 4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536512016 NC: 2026:KHC:40238 MFA No. 8641 of 2016 5. The petitioner met with an accident on 24.08.2010 in the course of employment and filed an application before the Labour Commissioner on 04.02.2014. She stated that she was working as a coolie under the first respondent. Accidentally, she fell down while working in the estate of first respondent and sustained fracture injury to her right ankle and was shifted to the estate hospital and from there to Government Hospital, Koppa. Then, she took treatment to private hospital at Chikkamagaluru. She was aged 48 years and getting a salary at Rs.6,000/- per month. The first respondent admitted employer and employee relationship, but stated that he was paying Rs.1,994/- per month as wages as she was aged 52 years at the time of the accident. He further stated that he has taken workman policy from the second respondent for his employees and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and second respondent is liable for compensation. The second respondent stated that his liability is limited to the amount proportionate to the premium paid by the first respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536512016 NC: 2026:KHC:40238 MFA No. 8641 of 2016 6. Petitioner examined herself as PW1 and also PW2- doctor, who stated regarding issue of disability certificate, and marked Exhibits P1 to P14. The first respondent marked check roll, wage register, P.F. Form as per Exhibits R1 to R3 and the second respondent marked insurance policy as per Exhibit R4. 7. P.W.2-doctor stated that the petitioner suffered 25% permanent disability to her right wrist and whole body disability at 15%. There is no fracture to her right wrist and she has not undergone any surgery. As such, cannot be considered as permanent total disablement as contemplated under section 4(b) of the Act and it can be considered only as permanent partial disablement as perceptions of under section 4(c) of the Act. The Tribunal observed that she has not undergone any surgery during the course of treatment and therefore, it cannot be considered as permanent total disablement and can be considered as partial disablement and accordingly, has taken the disablement of the whole body as 8%. Her age was considered as 52 years based on the admission of the first respondent. She was getting a sum of Rs.118.32 per day, which comes to sum to Rs.3,550/- per month. P.W.1 admitted - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536512016 NC: 2026:KHC:40238 MFA No. 8641 of 2016 in the cross-examination that she was getting a sum of Rs.1,994/- per month and the said amount was rightly taken by the Tribunal. As per the evidence of P.W.2 disability is to be taken as 15% as it is the case of injury, 60% income to be taken and compensation comes to Rs.26,237/- (1994X60%X146.20X15%) 8. The first respondent stated that he deposited Rs.55,050/- on 17.12.2014 itself. But, the said amount was not deposited within 30 days from the date of accident, i.e. 24.08.2010. He deposited on 17.12.2014, i.e. after more than 3 years. Therefore, the first respondent is directed to deposit Rs.26,237/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from one month after the date of accident till the date of deposit. As it is stated that already first respondent has deposited Rs.55,050/- on 17.12.2014 itself, the said amount is to be deducted and balance is to be paid by first respondent. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.26,237/- with interest at 12% p.a. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010536512016 NC: 2026:KHC:40238 MFA No. 8641 of 2016 It is submitted that the first respondent has already deposited Rs.55,050/- on 17.12.2014 itself, and therefore, the said amount is to be deducted and balance to be paid by first respondent with interest to the petitioner. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2