- 1 - MFA No.100750 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100750 OF 2020 (ECA) BETWEEN: 1. GONEPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA MALIGOUDAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 2. SMT. SHARANAVVA W/O. GONEPPA MALIGOUDAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK, BOTH ARE R/O: RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR, LAKAMANAHALLI, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580 010. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. G.R.TURAMARI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL RAJAK S/O. HAJARAT SAB CHAUDARI, AGE:MAJOR, OCC: TRANPORT BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO.112, JANGLIPETH, KALMESHWAR NAGAR, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 012. 2. SRI. RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., E/8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, JAIPUR, STATE RAJASTHAN – 302 022. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(aa) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFIED THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDITIONAL MACT, DHARWAD, DATED 30.05.2019 IN ECA NO.13/2014 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2026.01.27 16:48:08 +0530 - 2 - MFA No.100750 of 2020 THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 06.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO CAV JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, by the appellants, who are the parents of the deceased Shashikumar Maligoudar, questioning the Judgment and Award dated 30.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Dharwad, (‘the Commissioner’ for short) in ECA No.13/2014. 2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are that: 3. The appellants’ son Shashikumar was working as a cleaner under respondent No.1 in lorry bearing registration No.KA-25/C-981 and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month along with Rs.20/- per day as bhatta. He was the sole earning member of the family and died in a road traffic accident on 21.08.2009 during the course of employment. The claim petition was filed under Section 22 of the Employees’ Compensation Act seeking compensation. The Commissioner, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that there existed an employer and - 3 - MFA No.100750 of 2020 employee relationship and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. The Commissioner assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- and awarded compensation of Rs.4,55,440/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal contending that the Commissioner erred in not considering the daily bhatta of Rs.20/- while calculating the monthly income and, therefore, the compensation awarded is on the lower side. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that daily bhatta forms part of wages and exclusion of the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is argued that the deceased was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month and the award requires modification. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2– Insurance Company supported the impugned award and submitted that there is no documentary evidence to establish payment of bhatta. It is contended that the Commissioner has rightly assessed the income based on available material and no interference is warranted. - 4 - MFA No.100750 of 2020 7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants- claimants and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 8. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal is: “Whether the Commissioner was justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- while determining compensation?” 9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as a cleaner under respondent No.1 and that the accident occurred during the course of employment. The age of the deceased and the relevant factor applied by the Commissioner are also not in dispute. Though PW-1 has stated in his evidence that the deceased was paid daily bhatta, admittedly no documentary proof has been produced to substantiate the same. The Commissioner has taken note of this aspect and has assessed the income based on the material available on record. The determination of wages by the Commissioner is based on appreciation of evidence and it does not suffer from perversity or illegality. The Employees’ Compensation Act permits interference by this Court only when a substantial question of law arises. - 5 - MFA No.100750 of 2020 10. The question raised by the appellants regarding inclusion of bhatta is essentially a question of fact. The Commissioner, having considered the evidence, has chosen not to include the bhatta for want of proof. The appellants failed to substantiate the same in this appeal also. In view of the same, this Court finds no error in the said approach. The compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and reasonable having regard to the age of the deceased, the income assessed, and the statutory provisions under Section 4 of the Employees’ Compensation Act. 11. This Court does not find any substantial question of law warranting interference with the impugned Judgment and Award. 12. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The Judgment and Award dated 30.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner for Employees’ Compensation, Dharwad, in ECA No.13/2014 is hereby confirmed. - 6 - MFA No.100750 of 2020 iii) The amount, if any, deposited before this Court shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner for disbursement, in accordance with law. iv) The trial court records shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional court, forthwith. Sd/- (DR. K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE MBS CT:VP