Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Orange Tours And Travels And Ors on 3 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3632
MFA No. 202165 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202165 OF 2018 (WC)
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIVISIONAL MANGER,
OPP: SANGAM COMPLEX,
SUPER MARKET, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI S.S.ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ANURADHA M.DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ORANGE TOURS & TRAVELS
SISTER CONCERN OF THIRUMALA CABS,
HEAD OFFICE AT PLOT NO.132,
GREEN PARK AVENUE,
Digitally signed
by NIJAMUDDIN SUCHITRA BUS STOP,
JAMKHANDI JEEDIMETLA HYDERABAD - 500 055.
Location: HIGH TELANGANA STATE
COURT OF REPRESENTED BY ITS
KARNATAKA ASST. GENERAL MANGER (ADMIN).
2. SMT. SUREKHA
W/O MALLAPPA NATIKAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
3. TANUJA
D/O MALLAPPA NATIKAR,
AGE: 13 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT (MINOR),
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3632
MFA No. 202165 of 2018
HC-KAR
4. ARCHANA
D/O MALLAPPA NATIKAR,
AGE: 11 YEARS,
OCC: STUDENT (MINOR)
5. SWETHA
D/O MALLAPPA NATIKAR,
AGE: 6 YEARS,
OCC: NIL (MINOR)
6. HARISH
S/O MALLAPPA NATIKAR,
AGE: 5 YEARS,
OCC: NIL. (MINOR),
RESPONDENT NO.3-6 ARE MINORS
THROUGH THEIR NEXT FRIEND I.E.
NATURAL MOTHER RESP.NO.2
SMT. SUREKHA
W/O MALLAPPA NATIKAR,
ALL RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO 6,
R/O: VILLAGE MARAGUTTI,
TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 313.
7. SAREPPA
S/O BANDEPPA NATIKAR,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VILLAGE MARAGUTTI,
TQ: & DIST: KALABURAGI - 585 313.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANTOSH BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R7;
R1 SERVED;
R3 TO R6 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EC ACT,
PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
02.08.2018, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE II ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER OF EMPLOYEE'S
COMPENSATION AT KALABURAGI IN ECA NO.16/2016, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3632
MFA No. 202165 of 2018
HC-KAR
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Challenging judgment and award dated 02.08.2018
passed by II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for
Employees' Compensation, Kalaburagi (for short,
'Commissioner') in ECA no.16/2016, this appeal is filed.
2. Sri S.S.Aspalli, learned counsel appearing for
Smt.Anuradha M.Desai, advocate submitted that appeal was by
insurer assailing award on limited ground namely consideration
of monthly income of employee at Rs.10,000/- per month
would be contrary to Section 4(1B) of Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'E.C.Act') as it stood on date
of incident i.e., 28.12.2015. It was submitted that Central
Government vide notification no.S.O.1258 dated 31.05.2010
had notified Rs.8,000/- as income for purposes of Section 4 (1-
B) of E.C.Act. Learned counsel therefore submitted that appeal
may be allowed to said extent by modifying award.
3. Sri Santosh Biradar, learned counsel appearing for
claimants opposed appeal. It was submitted that as per
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3632
HC-KAR
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jaya Biswal and
Others v. Branch Manager, Iffco Tokio1 has considered
Rs.10,000/- per month as income of a driver of vehicle and
awarded compensation. Therefore, Commissioner had not
committed any error in passing impugned award. It was
submitted that since Commissioner had not awarded any
amount towards funeral expenses as required under Section
4(1)(4) of E.C.Act, same had to be accounted for. Therefore,
sought for dismissal of appeal.
4. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned
judgment and award.
5. This appeal by insurer is only on income of
deceased employee. Therefore, substantial question of law that
would arise for consideration is:
"Whether assessment of monthly income by
Commissioner was contrary to Section 4 (1B) of
E.C.Act and calls for interference?"
6. In view of above, relationship of deceased Mallappa
Natikar with respondent no.1 herein as employee and
AIR 2016 SC 956
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3632
HC-KAR
employer, occurrence of accident i.e., on 28.12.2015 while he
was in course of employment i.e., driving Bus no.KA-01/AB-
6184 and though incident arose out of employment are not in
dispute. Relationship of claimants with deceased is also not in
dispute. Commissioner assessed compensation by determining
age of deceased as 37 years and applying factor of 192.14.
Only dispute is about monthly income of deceased.
7. Though learned counsel for claimant has relied on
Jaya Biswal's case (supra), said decision involved a highly
skilled workman driving a vehicle on national route permit,
wherein Commissioner had accepted Rs.10,000/- as monthly
wage while High Court reduced same. It was held onus would
be on employer to maintain register of wages and records and
burden cannot be placed on claimants/workman to establish
income.
8. Admittedly, accident occurred on 28.12.2015 i.e.,
after coming into force of Amendment Act no.45 of 2009,
amending E.C.Act by inserting Section 4(1B) therein. By virtue
of same, Central Government was authorized to notify income
for purposes of Section 4(1) of E.C.Act. In terms of said
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3632
HC-KAR
authorization, Central Government had issued notification
no.S.O.1258 (E), notifying Rs.8,000/- as monthly income for
purposes of sub-section (1) of Section 4 of E.C.Act. While
passing impugned order, ignoring said notification,
Commissioner determined monthly income at Rs.10,000/-,
which would be contrary to law. Consequently, substantial
question of law is answered partly in affirmative by holding that
monthly income of deceased has to be considered at Rs.8,000/.
9. In view of above finding, compensation awardable
would be Rs.7,68,560/- (Rs.8,000/- x 50% x 192.14).
10. As per Section 4(1)(4) of E.C.Act, claimants would
be entitled for funeral expenses quantified at Rs.15,000/-. Thus
total award would be Rs.7,83,560/-. Consequently, following :
ORDER
(a) Appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award
dated 02.08.2018 passed by II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and Commissioner for Employees'
Compensation, Kalaburagi in ECA no.16/2016, is
modified.
(b) Claimants are held entitled for re-assessed
compensation of Rs.7,83,560/- as against
Rs.9,60,700/- awarded by Commissioner with
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3632
HC-KAR
interest @ 12% p.a. from date of accident i.e.,
28.12.2015 till deposit.
(c) Amount in deposit, if any, before this Court is
ordered to be transmitted to Commissioner for
payment with direction to refund excess amount if
any to appellant insurer.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
MSR
