- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8565 OF 2016 (WC) C/W MFA CROSS OBJECTION NO. 167 OF 2018 IN MFA No. 8565/2016: BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GANGAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, COOLIE, 2. KUM. B. MANJULA D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, 3. KUM. ASHA D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT SHANKARAPURA EXTN., CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY, PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF HORAMAGATTA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 202. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MOHAN K N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by PADMASHREE SHEKHAR DESAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 AND: 1. SRI AZGAR SAHEB S/O NOT KNOW TO THE APPELLANTS, AGED MAJOR, ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, R/AT WELCOME GATE, BHARATHI STREET, SRINGERI-577 139. 2. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MESCOM, SRINGERI, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST.-577 139. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MESCOM, CHIKMAGALURU-577 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S B HALLI., ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. H.V. DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.29.07.2016 PASSED ON ECA NO.185/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CJM, CHIKKAMAGALAURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA.CROB NO. 167/2018: BETWEEN: SRI AZGAR SAHEB S/O LATE HUSSAIN KHAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/ATBHARATHI STRET SRINGERI TOWN CHIKKAMANGALURU DISTRICT-577101 ...CROSS OBJECTOR - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 (BY SRI. S B HALLI., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 2. KUM. B. MANJULA D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, 3. KUM. ASHA D/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R1 TO R3 ARE R/AT SHANKARAPURA EXTN., CHIKKAMAGALURU CITY, PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF HORAMAGATTA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 201. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MESCOM, SRINGERI CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101 5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MESCOM, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAN K N., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. H.V. DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R5) THIS MFA CROB IN MFA NO.8565/2016 PASSED U/O.41 RULE 22 OF CPC, R/W SEC.30(1) OF EC ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.29.07.2016 PASSED ON ECA NO.185/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, CJM, CHIKKAMAGALURU, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.3,33,820/- TO THE PETITIONERS WITHIN 30 DAYS - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 FROM THE DATE OF THIS JUDGMENT FAILING WHICH HE SHALL PAY INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT P.A. ON 3,39,820/- AFTER 30 DAYS OF THIS JUDGMENT, TILL THE DATE OF PAYMENT. THIS MFA AND MFA CROB COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 29.07.2016 passed in ECA No.185/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM, Chikkamagaluru, for enhancing the compensation. 2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents. The ranks of the parties are retained as per tribunal for the sake of convenience. 3. Injured claimant met with an accident on 23.01.2014 and his parents and siblings filed claim petition claiming for the compensation. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record granted an amount of - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 Rs.3,33,820/-, after deducting Rs.1,00,000/- which was already received by the claimant as per Ex.R1. Aggrieved by the said order, they preferred an appeal and mainly contended that the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2/Sri.Lohithkumar was working with respondent No.2. On 01.05.2009, he climbed the electric pole for doing electrical work and fell down from the pole and sustained grevious injuries. But later he died. He was aged 23 years and was earning Rs.200 per day. The Tribunal erred in taking his income as Rs.4,000/- per month and it is to be taken as Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal also deducted Rs.1,00,000/- as per the agreement under Ex.R1 and it is erroneous. It is further contended that the respondent No.1, is not liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.3,33,820/- as he had already paid Rs.1,00,000. Tribunal erred in holding that respondent No.1 is not liable to pay interest on Rs.3,33,008/-. But they are entitled for interest at the rate of 12%. The following substantial question of law framed. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 “A) Whether the Lower Court is right in awarding less amount fo compensation to the Appellants who are the dependents of the deceased who was the only earning member in the Appellant’s family? B) Whether the Lower Court is right in taking Rs.4,000/- per month for consideration to decide Point No.3, though the evidence clearly shows that the deceased was getting Rs.200/- per month and without considering the nature of job of the deceased? C) Whether the Lower Court is right in deducting Rs.1,00,000/- which was paid by the 1st Respondent under Ex.R.1 Agreement dated 04.05.2009 which was paid under obligation? D) Whether the Lower Court is justify in not awarding interest from the date of petition by coming to a wrong conclusion that the 1st Respondent has complied with the requirement of sub-section 2 of the section 4-A of the Act? 4. Heard the arguments of both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that he was getting Rs.200/- per day and therefore his income is to be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. The petitioner met with an accident on 01.05.2009 and as per the Workmen - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 Compensation (Amendment) Act 2000, Act No.46 of 2000 dated 8 December, 2000, he is entitled for an income at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month. As it is a case of death, 50% is to be deducted and Rs.2,000/- per month is to be taken. The Tribunal considered his age as 25 years, based on the post mortem report, petitioners have not filed any document to show that he was aged 23 years, therefore, the said finding of the Tribunal regarding age need not be interfered and the relevant factor comes to 216.91. So the compensation comes to Rs.4,000 x 50% x 216.91 = Rs.4,33,820/-. The Tribunal rightly arrived to the said figure and also deducted Rs.1,00,000/- as the claimants had received Rs.1,00,000/- as per the agreement under Ex.R1 and granted an amount of Rs.3,33,820/-. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are officers of MESCOM, they engaged Electrical Contractor R1 for executing their work. So petitioner was working with respondent No.1. Therefore, it was held that R1 alone is liable to pay the compensation and he is directed to pay Rs.3,33,820/-, so - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 he deposited Rs.1,00,000/-. Petitioner is entitled for Rs.15,000 towards funeral expenses. Hence, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.3,33,820 + Rs.15,000 = Rs.3,48,820/-. The Tribunal granted interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from the date of judgment on the ground that immediately after the accident he deposited Rs.1,00,000/-. But the said Rs.1,00,000 is already deducted from the compensation of Rs.4,33,820/-. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to direct respondent No.1 to deposit Rs.15,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% on Rs.3,48,820/- from 23.02.2014 to till the date of deposit, within one month from the date of this order. 6. MFA CROB.No.167/2018 is filed by R1 against the award of the tribunal in challenging the judgment and award dated 29.07.2016 passed on ECA No.185/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, CJM, Chikkamagaluru. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that he is only electrical contractor under MESCOM and he has taken up the work as per the directions of the MESCOM. But the tribunal fixed up liability against him. Therefore, he requested the court for framing of the following substantial questions of law. “i. Whether the trial court is right in law justifying in fixing the liability on the appellant in the absence any material evidence on records? ii. Whether the trial court is right in law justifying in fixing the liability ignoring the proviso section 2(1)(dd) EC Act, 1923? iii. Whether the trail court is right in law justifying in fixing the liability on the appellant, though the respondents No.4 and 5 are vicariously liable to pay the compensation? iv. Whether the trial court is right in law justifying in awarding the interest 12% interest per annum on the compensation amount?” 8. Heard the arguments of both sides. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 9. On perusal of the judgment it clearly shows that , first respondent produced work order issued by Pattana Panchayathan on 14.08.2008 under Ex.R4 and also copy of the tender notification dated 19.06.2008 under Exs.R6 to R8. Ex.R10/letter to Pattana Panchayath, but he is not added Pattana panchayath as they are necessary party to the present petition. But respondent Nos.2 and 3 belong to MESCOM department and they are no way connected with the work undertaken by the first respondent. He has undertaken the work of shifting the electrical line from Pattana Panchayath, Sringeri, as the deceased met with an accident and sustained injuries, while they were working under the control of respondent No.1 and as they met with an accident during the course of employment, Tribunal fixed liability against the R1. He has not filed any document to show that he was not liable and only Pattana Panchayath, who entrusted the work alone is liable to pay the compensation as he was working on behalf of Pattana Panchayath. Therefore, Tribunal rightly considered all the - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010490412016 NC: 2026:KHC:41698 MFA No. 8565 of 2016 C/W MFA.CROB No. 167 of 2018 aspects and the fixed the liability. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said order. As a result, MFA No.8565/2016 is allowed in part. MFA no.167/2018 is dismissed, confirming the order of the Tribunal. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE AKV CT:NR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63