Karnataka High Court
Shankargouda And Ors vs Prabhugouda And Anr on 9 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735
MFA No. 202021 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 202021 OF 2023 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. SHANKARGOUDA
S/O CHANGONDAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 68 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
2. ANASUYA
W/O SHANKARGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: NIL,
3. BOURAMMA
W/O IRANAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 35 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by RAMESH OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
MATHAPATI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. CHANGONDGOUDA
KARNATAKA S/O IRANAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 16 YEARS,
M/G BY PETITIONER NO.3.
5. BHAGYASHREE
D/O IRANAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 14 YEARS,
M/G BY PETITIONER NO.3.
6. MALLAMMA
D/O IRANAGOUDA BIRADAR,
AGE: 16 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735
MFA No. 202021 of 2023
HC-KAR
M/G BY PETITIONER NO.3
ALL ARE R/O: YAKKUNDI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. PRABHUGOUDA
S/O GANGADHARGOUDA PATIL,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: YAKKUNDI,
TQ. AND DIST: VIJAYAPURA - 586 113.
2. THE MANAGER LEGAL/CLAIMS,
KOTAK MAHINDRA
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
ZONE-4TH , 8TH FLOOR INFINITY PARK,
A.K. VIADYA MARG,
MALLAD EAST, MUMBAI STATE.
MAHARASHTRA - 400 097.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEE
COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY
MODIFYING THE ORDER OF THE COURT OF THE III
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AT VIJAYAPUR, DATED
23.02.2022 IN ECA NO.32/2020, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735
MFA No. 202021 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
With consent of both parties, matter is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 23.02.2022
passed by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for
Employees Compensation, Vijayapura (for short 'Commissioner)
in ECA no.32/2020, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri Sanganagouda V Biradar, learned counsel
submitted that appeal was by claimants for enhancement of
compensation on sole ground, namely Commissioner's error in
considering monthly income of deceased at Rs.8,000/- instead
of Rs.15,000/-, while calculating loss of dependency. It was
submitted Iranagouda S/o Shankaragouda Biradar, aged 35
years was employed as driver by respondent no.1/owner of car
bearing no.KA-28/4644 on monthly wages of Rs.15,000/- along
with Bhatta of Rs.100/- per day. It was submitted, on
26.02.2020, when deceased was on duty, driving car on
Vijayapura - Jamkahandi road, he lost control over vehicle and
it turned turtle. In said accident, he sustained severe injuries
and died. Seeking compensation on ground of his untimely
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735
HC-KAR
death, his parents, wife and children filed claim petition under
Section 22 of Employees Compensation Act.
4. On contest, owner admitted employment and
occurrence of accident in course of and out of employment,
but, denied age and income of deceased. It was however stated
that vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 and claimed
indemnification. Insurer opposed claim petition alleging that
owner had not informed insurer as required and vehicle was
used for commercial purpose. Insurer also disputed age,
income and dependency.
5. Based on pleadings, tribunal framed issues and
recorded evidence. Claimant no.3 was examined as PW-1 and
Exs.P1 to 9 were marked. Respondents did not lead any
evidence, but got marked insurance policy as RW-1. On
consideration, Commissioner held that accident had occurred in
course of and out of employment and that claimants were
entitled for compensation of Rs.7,84,000/- from insurer with
interest at 12% p.m.
6. Dissatisfied with same, claimants were in appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735
HC-KAR
7. It was submitted, while assessing monthly income
of deceased, Commissioner erred in determining it at
Rs.8,000/-, despite fact that accident occurred after issuance of
notification no.S.O.71(E) dated 03.01.2020, stipulating
Rs.15,000/- as monthly income for purposes of Section 4(1B)
of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, substantial
question of law arises about assessment of income of deceased
being contrary to law. On said ground sought for enhancement.
8. On other hand, Smt.Preeti Patil Melkundi, learned
counsel for insurer supported award.
9. Heard counsel and perused judgment and award.
10. From above, substantial question of law that would
arise for consideration is
"Whether assessment of income of deceased by
Commissioner is contrary to law?"
11. Same is answered in affirmative for following
reasons.
12. Occurrence of accident in course of and out of
employment, leading to death of employee aged 35 years is not
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735
HC-KAR
in dispute. Coverage of insurance as on date of accident is also
not in dispute. Only dispute is about monthly income assessed
in claim petition. Claimants stated that deceased was working
as driver with respondent no.1 on monthly wages of
Rs.15,000/- with Bhatta of Rs.100/- per day. Though, claimant
did not substantiate same with specific material and employer
denied it, in view of issuance of notification by Central
Government notifying Rs.15,000/- as monthly income for
purpose of Section 4(1B) of Employees Compensation Act,
same has to be considered as monthly income. Hence, re-
computation of loss of dependency would be Rs.14,21,700/-
(Rs.15,000 x 50% x 189.56).
13. Apart from above, tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/-
towards funeral expenses, which is not altered.
14. Consequently, following:
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed.
ii. Judgment and award dated 23.02.2022 passed
by III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3735
HC-KAR
for Employees Compensation, Vijayapura in ECA
no.32/2020 is modified. Claimants are entitled
for compensation of Rs.14,46,700/- with interest
at 12% p.a. from date of petition i.e. 26.05.2020
till deposit.
iii. Except above, remaining part of award of
Commissioner is sustained.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NJ
