Karnataka High Court

Sangeeta vs Abdul Khalid on 19 February, 2025

                                             -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144
                                                   MFA No. 202480 of 2022
                                               C/W MFA No. 200223 of 2025



                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                        DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI

                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202480 OF 2022 (ECA)
                                            C/W
                        MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200223 OF 2025 (ECA)

                   IN MFA NO.202480/2022:

                   BETWEEN:

                   THE MANAGER,
                   SHRIRAM GEN. INS. CO. LTD.,
                   HEAD OFFICE :
                   E-8, EPIP, RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA,
                   SITAPURA-JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-032 022.
                   (NOW REPRESENTED BY
                   AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
                   BELEKAHALLI, BENGALORE)
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA                                                   ...APPELLANT
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI
Location: HIGH     (BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

                   AND:

                   1.   SANGITA
                        W/O LATE DASARATH MUGALE,
                        AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

                   2.   BHAGYASHREE
                        D/O LATE DASARATH MUGALE,
                        AGE: 11 YEARS (MINOR),
                        U/G OF MOTHER SANGITA/
                        RESP. NO.1 HEREIN.
                            -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144
                                 MFA No. 202480 of 2022
                             C/W MFA No. 200223 of 2025




3.   MASTER SUMIT
     S/O LATE DASARATH MUGALE,
     AGE: 08 YEARS (MINOR),
     U/G OF MOTHER SANGITA/RESP. NO.1 HEREIN.

4.   GUNDAMMA W/O GUNDAPPA MUGALE,
     AGE: 75 YEARS,
     (MOTHER OF DECEASED DRIVER
     DASARATH MUGALE)

     ALL R/O JALASANGI, TQ. HUMNABAD,
     NOW AT VILLAGE YARBAG,
     TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR-585 401.

5.   ABDUL KHALID S/O ABDUL SALIM,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS AND OWNER
     OF LORRY BEARING NO.MH-04/CP-3143,
     R/O NARPOLI, TQ. BHIWANDI,
     DIST. THANE, MAHARASHTRA-421 202.

                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAVI B. PATIL, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4;
(R2 & R3 ARE MINORS, R/P BY R1);
V/O DTD. 19.02.2025, NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

      THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30 (1) OF THE
EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DTD. 01.02.2022 IN ECA NO.08/2017 PASSED BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC AND ADDL. MACT AND
COMMISSIONER     FOR    EMPLOYEES    COMPENSATION      AT
BASAVAKALYAN.
                            -3-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144
                                 MFA No. 202480 of 2022
                             C/W MFA No. 200223 of 2025



IN MFA NO.200223/2025:

BETWEEN:

1.   SMT. SANGITA
     W/O DECEASED DASHRATH MUGALE,
     AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

2.   KUM. BHAGYASHREE
     D/O DECEASED DASARATH MUGALE,
     AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

3.   MASTER SUMEET S/O
     DECEASED DASARATH MUGALE,
     AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,

     THE APPELLANTS NO.2 TO 3 ARE MINORS,
     U/G OF NATURAL MOTHER/NEXT FRIEND,
     THE APPELLANT NO.1 SANGEETA.

4.   GUNDAMMA W/O GUNDAPPA MUGALE,
     AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: NIL,

     ALL R/O JALSANGI VILLAGE,
     TQ. HUMNABAD, NOW AT YARBAG VILLAGE,
     TQ. BASAVAKALYAN, DIST. BIDAR.

                                             ...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. VEERANI V. NANDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.   MR. ABDUL KHALID S/O ABDUL SALIM,
     AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS & OWNER
     OF LORRY BEARING NO.MH-04/CP-3143,
     R/O NARPOLI, TQ. BHIWANDI,
     DIST. THANE, MAHARASHTRA-400 601.

2.   THE MANAGER,
     SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
     HEAD OFFICE:
     E-8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
                               -4-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144
                                    MFA No. 202480 of 2022
                                C/W MFA No. 200223 of 2025



    SITAPURA JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN-032 022,
    POLICY NO. 10012/31/16/025092,
    W.E.F. 13.12.2015 TO 12.12.2016,
    DATE OF INCIDENT 13.02.2016.

                                                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2;
 V/O DTD. 19.02.2025, NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)

    THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE APPEAL AND MODIFY THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD
DATED 01.02.2022 IN ECA NO.08/2017 PASSED BY THE COURT
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND ADDL. MACT AT
BASAVAKALYAN, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION.

    THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI


                     ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

By consent of learned counsel appearing for both the

parties, the appeals are taken up for final disposal, though

they are slated for Orders.

2. These appeals are directed against the

judgment and award dated 01.02.2022 passed in ECA

No.08/2017 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and Addl.

MACT and Commissioner for Employees Compensation at

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144

Basavakalyan (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Commissioner' for short).

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would

be referred to as per their ranking before the

Commissioner.

4. By the impugned judgment and award, the

Commissioner has allowed the claim petition in part and

awarded a sum of Rs.12,06,100/- as compensation and

directed the Insurance Company to deposit the same.

Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the

Insurance Company has filed MFA No.202480/2022,

challenging its liability to pay the compensation, whereas

the petitioners have filed MFA No.200223/2025, seeking

enhancement of compensation.

5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

Insurance Company and the learned counsel for the

claimants.

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144

6. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides,

the only substantial question of law that arise for

consideration in both these appeals is,

Whether the learned Commissioner was justified in assessing the monthly wages at Rs.7,000/- per month, even though the notification issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1B) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 notified Rs.8,000/- as wages and that in not deducting 50% as per Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act?

7. The factual matrix of the case is that, petitioner

No.1 was the widow of deceased Dasarath and petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 are the minor daughter and son of the

deceased respectively. They contended that deceased

Dasarath was a driver on the lorry bearing No.MH-04/CP-

3143 on monthly wages of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.200/- per

day as batta and on 13.02.2016 while he was proceeding

in the said lorry, met with an accident and due to collision

with container lorry bearing No.MH-12/FZ-3659 and the

tractor trailer unit bearing No.MH-13/T-8974 and 9411

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144

and died in the accident. In effect, it was a chain collision

accident. Therefore, petitioners claim compensation under

the provisions of the E.C. Act from the owner and insurer

of the lorry, in which the deceased was a driver. The fact

that there was a relationship of employer and employee is

not disputed, but however, respondent No.1 did not

specify the wages that was being paid to deceased

Dasarath. The Insurance Company though disputed its

liability on the ground that the terms and conditions of the

policy were violated, could not satisfactorily establish the

said fact and therefore, the Commissioner proceeded to

consider the income of deceased Dasarath at Rs.7,000/-

per month and awarded the compensation. However, while

calculating the compensation, the Commissioner did not

deduct 50% of wages as envisaged under Section 4 of the

E.C. Act, before multiplying with the relevant factor.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance

Company would submit that the learned Commissioner

erred in not applying the method of calculation envisaged

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144

under Section 4 of the E.C. Act and it should have

deducted 50% of the wages in cases of death and then

multiply the same with the relevant factor under the

Schedule to the E.C. Act.

9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners contended that though the income of the

deceased was on the higher side, the learned

Commissioner erred in holding the income at Rs.4,000/-

per month by adding the daily batta and totalling the same

at Rs.7,000/- per month.

10. In the above circumstances, it is evident that

the learned Commissioner could not have reduced the

wages of the deceased below Rs.8,000/-, which is the

amount fixed under the notification issued by the Central

Government under Section 4(1B) of the E.C. Act.

Therefore, the Commissioner clearly erred in holding the

wages of the deceased at Rs.7,000/- per month and to

that extent, the appeal filed by the petitioners would

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144

succeed. Accordingly, the monthly wages of the deceased

is considered at Rs.8,000/-.

11. So far as the contention of the Insurance

Company is concerned, evidently the provisions of Section

4(1A) of the E.C. Act mention that where the death results

from the injury, an amount equal to 50% of the monthly

wages of the deceased multiplied by the relevant factor

has to be awarded. Therefore, the learned Commissioner

having failed to apply the criteria of "50%" as envisaged in

Section 4(1A), has erred in calculating the same.

12. In the result, the petitioners are entitled for

compensation of Rs.8,000 x 50% x 169.44 =

Rs.6,77,760/-.

13. The compensation awarded by the

Commissioner under the head of funeral expenses to the

tune of Rs.20,000/- remains unaltered.

14. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for a total

compensation of Rs.6,97,760/- with interest.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-K:1144

15. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals

deserve to be allowed in part. Hence, the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeals are allowed in part.

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed

by the Commissioner is modified.

(iii) The petitioners/appellants in MFA

No.200223/20205 are entitled for a total

compensation of Rs.6,97,760/- instead of

Rs.12,06,100/- awarded by the

Commissioner, together with interest at 12%

p.a. from the date of 30 days after the date

of accident, excluding the interest for the

delayed period of 1028 days in filing this

appeal.