- 1 - MFA No.5212 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5212/2024(ECA) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHRUTHI T.S. W/O LATE RAMESH H.G. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOUSEWIFE 2. MASTER PRANAG H.R. S/O LATE RAMESH H.G. AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS 3. MASTER PRANVITH R. GOWDA S/O LATE RAMESH H.G. AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS 4. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O GUNDAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS APPELLANT NOS. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS REP. BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN SMT. SHRUTHI T.S. 1ST APPELLANT. ALL ARE R/AT: SAGARA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT, NOW R/O 2ND CROSS, SHANTHAMMA LAYOUT, SHIVAMOGGA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE) - 2 - MFA No.5212 of 2024 AND: 1. SRI. UMESH HEGDE AGED MAJOR M/S. HEDGE BULK CARRIERS, K.K. TOWERS, MRPL ROAD, KANA SURATHKAL, MANGALURU-575 002. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED SURATHKAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R1 SERVED) THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DTD:02.01.2024 PASSED IN ECA NO.06/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, C/C.II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 14.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA - 3 - MFA No.5212 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 02.01.2024 passed in ECA No.6/2021 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Shivamogga. One Ramesh H.G., son of Gundappa, met with an accident on 21.04.2019 and died subsequently. His wife, children and mother filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.7,59,000/- with interest at 12% per annum after 30 days from the date of accident till realization. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation in which it is contended that Ramesh was working as driver under respondent No.1 from past 7 to 8 years and earning a salary of Rs.13,225/- per month and Rs.200/- per day as per Ex.P.22. The claimants examined R.W.1-author of the document, but the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on lower side. Thus, requested for enhancement of the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the - 4 - MFA No.5212 of 2024 income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month based on the notification of the Central Government issued on 31.05.2010 and therefore, it needs no interference. 4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both sides. 5. Section 4 of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 reads as follows: 4. Amount of compensation.- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:-- (a) where death results an from the injury : an amount equal to [fifty percent] of the monthly wages of the deceased [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of [one lakh and twenty thousand rupees], whichever is more; (b) where permanent total disablement results from the injury : an amount equal to [sixty percent] of the monthly wages of the injured[employee] multiplied by the relevant factor; Or an amount of [one lakh and forty thousand rupees], whichever is more; [Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount of compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and (b).] - 5 - MFA No.5212 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Sivaraman and others Vs. P. Satishkumar and another1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “19.xxxx We are finally determining the right of workmen today. The Act is a special legislation for the benefit of the labour. Keeping in view the scheme of the Act we are of the view that the only interpretation which can be given to the amendment is that if any benefit is conferred on the workmen and the said benefit is available on the date when the case is finally adjudicated, the said benefit would be extended to the workmen.” “28. This Court held, in line with settled precedent of this Court, that where a legislation confers a benefit on some persons, (ii) without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other persons or the public generally and (iii) where the conferral of such benefit appears to be the intention of the legislature, the presumption of prospective application may stand displaced. Though amendments enhancing the compensation payable under the 1923 Act confer a benefit upon employees, a corresponding burden is imposed on employers to pay a higher rate of compensation. It is presumably for this reason that the three-Judge Bench of this Court in Valsala and the Kerala High Court in Alavi held that the benefit of an amendment enhancing the rate of compensation does not have retrospective application to accidents that took place prior to the coming into force of the amendment. Further, as we have already noted, there is nothing in Act 45 of 2009, 1 (2020)4 SCC 594 - 6 - MFA No.5212 of 2024 either express or implied, to denote an intention of the legislature to confer the benefit of the amendment to accidents that took place prior to its coming into force.” 7. Relying upon the same judgment, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Superintendent Engineer and others Vs. Smt. D.L. Kavitha2, has held as under: “19. xxxx Act is a welfare legislation for the benefit of the workmen/employees, therefore, the said provisions have to be interpreted to serve the welfare of the employees. Sec.4(1)(a) of the Act does not state that an amount equal to fifty percent of monthly wages, as prescribed in the notification under Sec.4(1B) of the Act, must be awarded. Further, the word 'Wages' is not defined to say that wages as notified by the Central Government under Section 4(1B). Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the wages shall be restricted only to the amount notified under the notification.” 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani and Others Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited3, in which it was held that reduction in compensation from Rs.8,79,800/- to Rs.5,54,875 on basis of pleadings in written statement of claimants, considering monthly wages far below 2 MFA No.1247 of 2016 decided on 08.07.2023 3 (2023) 16 SCC 573 - 7 - MFA No.5212 of 2024 minimum wage of Rs.8,000/- as notified in Gazette Noti. Dt. 31.05.2010, held, unsustainable. 9. In the present case, Ramesh was working as a driver and the claimants examined employer as R.W.1. Respondent No.2 did not step into the witness box to establish their defence. It is stated that Ramesh was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and daily batta of Rs.200/-. Ex.P.22 is the salary certificate dated 20.08.2022 in which it was stated that Ramesh was getting a salary of Rs.13,225/- per month with a daily batta of Rs.300/-. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take his salary as Rs.13,225/- per month and 50% of the same comes to Rs.6,613/-. He was aged 38 years as per Ex.P.23 and the appropriate factor is 189.56, and the compensation comes to Rs.12,53,560/-. Thus, the compensation is enhanced from Rs.7,59,000/- to Rs.12,53,560/- . 10. In the result, the following order is passed: (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The Claimants are entitled for the total compensation of Rs.12,53,560/- with interest at 12% per annum after 30 days from the date of accident till realization. - 8 - MFA No.5212 of 2024 (iii) The respondent insurance company might have deposited the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal and therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs. 4,94,560/- within one month on the date of this order. (iv) On such deposit, petitioner No.4-mother of the deceased is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- with interest accrued on it. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were minors in the year 2021 and each of them are entitled for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- and the said amount is to be kept in Fixed Deposit in a nationalilsed bank till they attain the age of majority, and petitioner No.1, the mother of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, is permitted to withdraw interest on the said fixed deposit, once in 3 months, to meet out their day to day expenses. Petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw the balance amount along with interest accrued on it. Sd/- (P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE CS CT:NR