- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:357 MFA No. 101380 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101380 OF 2023 (ECA) BETWEEN: SHRI. SHAMIVULA S/O. MOHAMMAD HANIF UPPUNUSI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, NOW NIL, R/O. AKKI-ALUR, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581102. &APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. ILIYAS AHMED S/O. MAQBOOL AHAMED MULLA, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. AKKI-ALUR, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581102. 2. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, THE CHOLA M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., 1ST FLOOR, KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO, ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2022, PASSED IN E.C.A. NO.4/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HANGAL, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:357 MFA No. 101380 of 2023 THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the award passed in ECA No.4/2021 dated 31.12.2022 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal (for short <the Trial Court=) whereby the Trial Court had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.16,05,116/-, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Trial Court has held that the petitioner has a permanent disability of 75% in respect of his right lower limb and that 30% in respect of the left lower limb. Further, the total permanent physical disability is taken as 80%. It is submitted that he was working as a driver and his leg is amputated above the knee. It is submitted that the appellant/claimant is 100% functionally disabled and he is not in a position to drive. As such, the Trial Court ought to have taken the disability as 100%. In this regard, he has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon9ble - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:357 MFA No. 101380 of 2023 Apex Court in K.Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., and another1 and also the judgment of the Hon9ble Supreme Court in S.Suresh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and another2. 3. In K.Janardhan9s case, the Hon9ble Apex Court at paragraph No.5 and 6 observed as under: <5. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one argument during the course of the hearing. He has submitted that the appellant claimant being a tanker driver, the loss of his right leg ipso facto meant a total disablement as understood in terms of Section 2(1)(l) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and as such the appellant was entitled to have his compensation computed on that basis. In support of this plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas1. The cited case pertained to a carpenter who had suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow and this Court held that this amounted to a total disability as the injury was of such a nature that the claimant had been disabled from all work which he was capable of performing at 1 2008 (8) SCC 518 2 2010 (13) SCC 777 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:357 MFA No. 101380 of 2023 the time of the accident. It was observed as under: (SCC p. 291, para 5) <5. The expression <total disablement= has been defined in Section 2(1)(l) of the Act as follows: 82. (1)(l) <total disablement= means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement;9 It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanent disablement to the respondent, and the question for consideration is whether the disablement incapacitated the respondent for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident. The Commissioner has examined the question and recorded his finding as follows: 8The injured workman in this case is carpenter by profession&. By loss of the left hand above the elbow, he has evidently been rendered unfit for the work of carpenter as the work of carpentry cannot be done by one hand only.9 This is obviously a reasonable and correct finding. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to assail it on any ground and it does not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:357 MFA No. 101380 of 2023 require to be corrected in this appeal. There is also no justification for the other argument which has been advanced with reference to Item 3 of Part II of Schedule 1, because it was not the appellant's case before the Commissioner that amputation of the arm was from 83 from tip of acromion to less than 4½3 below the tip of olecranon. A new case cannot therefore be allowed to be set up on facts which have not been admitted or established.= 6. Applying the ratio of the cited judgment to the facts of the present case we are of the opinion that the appellant herein has also suffered a 100% disability and incapacity in earning his keep as a tanker driver as his right leg had been amputated from the knee. Additionally, a perusal of Sections 8 and 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would show that the appellant would now be disqualified from even getting a driving licence.= 4. Relying on the above judgment, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant that 100% disability has to be considered and the compensation has to be reassessed. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ insurance company submits that in the judgment of the Court - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:357 MFA No. 101380 of 2023 below, at paragraph 14, it was observed as amputation below the knee. It is further submitted that it is not the case of the appellant-claimant that the claimant is not in a position to do any other work. If he is not able to do the driver9s job, he can do any other job and hence, his functional disability cannot be considered as 100%. Further, the claimant has not surrendered his driving licence and therefore, the question of taking 100% disability in this case would not arise. Alternatively, it is also submitted that by any chance, if this Court comes to the conclusion that the disability has to be taken at 100%, then 50% has to be deducted as like in the death cases. It is submitted that on all counts, the compensation awarded by the Trial Court is just and reasonable and no enhancement is called for. 6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side, perused the material on record. The issue with regard to what is physical disability and how the functional disability has to be considered is no more res-integra. The Hon9ble Apex Court and this Court in series of judgments have held that the Courts have to consider the functional disability basing on the avocation of the claimant. In case of a driver if the leg is amputated either - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:357 MFA No. 101380 of 2023 below the knee or the above knee he cannot drive the vehicle. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/insurance company that there is nothing to show that whether the claimant has surrendered the driving licence or not, it is clear that he will not be in a position to drive the vehicle, it amounts to 100% disability as held by the Hon9ble Apex Court in K.Janardhan9s case (referred supra). In that view of the matter, this Court is considering the disability at 100%. 7. Then coming to the next submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the Court has to deduct 50% of the income as like in death cases, even the said submission also has no legs to stand. As it is a case of permanent disability, this Court is inclined to take 60% of the income. Hence, in the light of the above discussion, since the accident had occurred in the year 2021, as per the Central Government notification, the income has to be taken as Rs.15,000/- per month and 60% of the same comes to Rs.9,000/-. Applying the relevant factor 215.28 the claimant is entitled to Rs.19,37,520/- (Rs.9,000 x 215.28). The Trial - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:357 MFA No. 101380 of 2023 Court has already awarded an amount of Rs.55,100/- towards medical expenses, which needs no interference. Hence, altogether the claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.19,92,620/-. 8. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimant is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,05,116/- to Rs.19,92,620/-. i) The enhanced amount shall carry interest @12% from 26.03.2021 till deposit of the amount. ii) The respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall deposit the amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. iii) On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount. iv) Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records to the Trial Court, along with certified copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith without any delay. v) No costs. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:357 MFA No. 101380 of 2023 vi) Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI YAN CT: UMD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37