HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8157 MFA No. 1669 of 2018 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1669 OF 2018 (WC) BETWEEN: 1. RADHA W/O LATE SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 2. BHUMIKA D/O LATE SRINVIAS AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER BOTH ARE RESIDING AT INAM GOLLAHALLI, MADALUR POST, SIRA TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 137 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. R SHOWKATH PASHA S/O REHMAN, MAJOR, RESIDING AT BILAL MASJID ROAD, BILALK NAGAR, HULIYAR – 572143 2. THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8157 MFA No. 1669 of 2018 - 2 - BRANCH OFFICE, MAGANUR COMPLEX, DAVANAGERE ROAD, CHITRADURGA – 577 501 3. YALLAMMA W/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT BABBUR FARM HIRIYUR TALUK – 572 143 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK N PATIL., ADVOCATE FOR R2, VIDE ORDER DATED 03.08.2022, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 06.01.2023, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) *** THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.01.06.2017 PASSED ON ECA NO.55/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HIRIYUR, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.6,22,940/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM THE EXPIRY OF ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT TILL THE DATE OF THE DEPOSIT FROM RESPONDENT NO.2. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal seeks to challenge a Judgment and Award dated 01.06.2017 passed in E.C.A.No.55/2014 by the learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Hiriyur [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment and HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8157 MFA No. 1669 of 2018 - 3 - Award”] in a petition under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 [hereinafter referred to as the “WC Act”]. By the Impugned Judgment and Award, a compensation in a sum of ₹6,22,940/- with 12% interest has been awarded to the respondent No.3/petitioner No.1 (mother of deceased Srinivas) and appellants/respondent Nos.3 and 4 (wife and minor daughter of deceased Srinivas) by the learned Trial Court. 2. This Court, had, after briefly hearing the matter on 20.01.2026, passed the following directions: “1…. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he has only one ground of challenge in the present appeal. The income which was taken by the learned Trial Court was not taken in terms of the notional income as set out and that it should have been taken at the rate of Rs.8,000/- per month, as the accident took place in the year 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has just received the papers and requests for some time to take instructions and file his vakalathnama. At his request, list this matter on 04.02.2026.” HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8157 MFA No. 1669 of 2018 - 4 - 3. The brief facts are that, one Srinivas (husband of respondent No.3, father of respondent No.4 and son of petitioner No.1 before the Trial Court) was working as a Driver of a Lorry bearing Registration No.KA-11/3609 in the employment of the respondent No.1. On 24.11.2009, at about 10:45 p.m., while he was travelling from Kudligi to Chitradurga, near M.B. Aiyanahally, the Lorry over turned, as a result of which, the said Srinivas sustained injuries and was declared dead on the way to the Hospital. 4. The claimants, being the mother and two major sons of deceased Srinivas filed a claim petition, stating that the deceased was being paid ₹6,000/- per month as wages and a sum of ₹100/- per day as daily wages (batta) and thus filed a claim petition, claiming compensation in a sum of ₹10,00,000/-. 5. The claim petition was contested by the respondent No.2/ Insurance Company. None appeared for the respondent No.1/employer and was proceeded with ex- HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8157 MFA No. 1669 of 2018 - 5 - parte. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 who were also claimants in the matter did not file any objections. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the learned Trial Court: “1. Whether the petitioners prove that the son petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2 and 3 by name Srinivasa S/o. Venkatappa being the employee under respondent No.1 as a Driver for the Lorry bearing No.KA- 11-3609, on 24-11-2009 while discharging his duty, at 10:45 p.m. near M.B. Iyyanhalli and Hosahalli village, on the way to Kudligi-Chitradurga, met with accident and he succumbed to the injuries caused out of an during the course of discharge of his duty? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation? If so at what quantum and from whom? 3. What Order or Decree?” 6. Petitioner No.2/one of the major sons of deceased Srinivas has given evidence as PW-1 and produced documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-10; the respondent No.3/wife of deceased Srinivas has given her evidence as RW-1. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence. After examining the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the learned Trial Court has awarded compensation in a sum of ₹6,22,940/- with 12% interest per annum and held that the respondent HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8157 MFA No. 1669 of 2018 - 6 - No.3/mother and appellants/wife and minor daughter of deceased Srinivas are entitled to the said compensation amount. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants/respondents No.3 and 4 submits that the salary of the deceased was taken at ₹6,000/- per month, whereas it ought to have taken the notional income at ₹8,000/- per month based on the Schedule of Notional Income and also ₹100/- towards daily wages (batta). 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that the learned Trial Court has calculated the salary as per the notional income which was prevailing in the year 2009. The enhancement has only come across by a Notification dated 31.05.2010. Thus, as on the date of the Judgment and Award, the Trial Court had correctly calculated the enhanced amount. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8157 MFA No. 1669 of 2018 - 7 - 9. The question that arises for consideration of this Court is, whether the compensation that has been calculated by the learned Trial Court is in accordance with law? 10. The examination of the Impugned Judgment and Award shows that the learned Trial Court took the salary of the deceased at ₹6,000/- per month and deducting 50% of the wage, in terms of Section 4 (1)(a) of the W.C.Act, considering the age of the deceased as 31 years, applying the relevant factor ₹205.98, calculated the loss of dependency in the following manner: “₹6,000/-x50%=₹3,000/-x205.98=₹6,17,940/-” 11. The learned Trial Court also awarded a sum of ₹5,000/- as funeral expenses, invoking Section 4(4) of the W.C.Act. Thus, the learned Trial Court awarded a total compensation in a sum of ₹6,22,940/- with 12% interest per annum. HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8157 MFA No. 1669 of 2018 - 8 - 12. Concededly, the enhancement of notional income was applicable only from the date of the Notification coming into effect, i.e.31.05.2010. Thus, as on the date of the accident, the income that was stated to have been received or paid to the deceased was the income that the learned Trial Court has taken. 13. In view of the aforegoing, this Court finds no infirmity with the Impugned Judgment and Award, which would require interference by this Court. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. All pending applications stand closed. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE BMV* List No. : 2 Sl No.: 6 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA