- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010489252021 NC: 2026:KHC:45841 MFA No. 7074 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7074 OF 2021 (ECA) BETWEEN: M.NAGARAJU S/O LATE MADAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.2/4 BASAVANAGUDI STREET BEEMANAGAR KOLLEGALA TOWN-571 440. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNITED INDIA INS CO LTD BY ITS MANAGER NO.305, ATCHAM MANSION SOUTHERN EXTENSION KOLLEGALA TOWN-571 440. MOHAN BABU @ MAHESH BABU S/O RAJAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT NEAR HOUSING BOARD COLONY UDUYAR ROAD, UDUPI REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER CHAMARAJU S/O LATE NANJAIAH AGED MAJOR RESIDING AT SIDDAIANAPURA VILLAGE AND POST Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010489252021 NC: 2026:KHC:45841 MFA No. 7074 of 2021 2. KOLLEGALA TALUK AND HE DIIED RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE HIS LRS., SUMARAJ W/O RACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 3. RACHAINAH S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.7/580 OM SHANTHI ROAD, RAJIVANAGAR KOLLEGALA TALUK-571 440. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJAIAH K, ADVOCATE FOR R1, VIDE ORDER DATED 14.07.2023, NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 ARE DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.05.11.2020 PASSED IN ECA NO.06/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, COMMISSIONER FORE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, MYSURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The claimant employee is before this court challenging the judgment and award dated 05.11.2020 passed in ECA.No.6/2015 by the Commissioner for Employees' - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010489252021 NC: 2026:KHC:45841 MFA No. 7074 of 2021 Compensation, Mysuru, whereby the Commissioner has partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.2,34,810/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till its realisation. 2. The relationship of employee and the employer in the instant case is not disputed. It is also not in dispute that during the course of employment the claimant suffered injuries. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the Tribunal is not justified in considering the wages of the claimant at Rs.11,000/- per month i.e., salary at Rs.8,000/- and batta of Rs.100/- per day, instead of Rs.25,000/- per month since the claimant was working as a driver. 4. The said contention was opposed by the learned counsel for the insurer on the ground that the appellant has neither examined the employer, nor produced any document to substantiate his actual income, rather the claimant has proceeded only on the basis that he possessed license to drive LMV. Thus, the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the claimant at Rs.11,000/- per month. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010489252021 NC: 2026:KHC:45841 MFA No. 7074 of 2021 5. I have carefully examined the evidence of the claimant so also the documents. Except the oral testimony of PW.1 that he was earning Rs.25,000/- per month as a driver, no cogent evidence and documents were produced before the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income at Rs.8,000/- per month and Rs.100/- batta per day i.e., Rs.3,000/- totally Rs.11,000/- per month as his income since the accident had occurred in the year 2014. Further, the Tribunal has rightly adopted the relevant factor and has rightly assessed disability and thus rightly awarded the compensation, which requires no interference at the hands of this Court. The appeal is therefore dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7