Karnataka High Court
Dundappa vs Ncc Company Limited And Ors on 11 July, 2025
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3852
MFA No. 204154 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 204154 OF 2024 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
DUNDAPPA S/O HANAMANTH BADIGER @ HARIJAN,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: MASON WORK (NOW NIL),
R/O: TALIKOTI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL, DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
NOW RESIDING AT GANESH NAGAR,
IBRAHIMPUR, VIJAYAPURA - 586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V.BIRADAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. NCC COMPANY LIMITED, 301 BATAVIA CHAMBERS,
KUMBARA KRUPA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. PITA MOHAN GOVINDRAO
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PROJECT MANAGER OF
SUJI INFRASTRUCTURE COMPANY,
Digitally signed R/O: DANAPUR, TQ: HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY-583 101.
by RAMESH
MATHAPATI 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
Location: HIGH ICICI GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
COURT OF A.K. ASIAN GRAND, 3RD FLOOR,
KARNATAKA NEAR MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA,
OPP: GESCOM HEAD OFFICE,
STATION ROAD, KALABURAGI - 585 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH MALLAYYA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
NOTICE TO R1 AND R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT PAYABLE TO THE APPELLANT BY SUITABLY MODIFYING THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.10.2023 PASSED BY PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION, VIJAYAPURA IN ECA NO.08/2020.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3852
MFA No. 204154 of 2024
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
Though appeal is listed for admission, with consent of
learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Challenging judgment and award dated 16.10.2023
passed by Principal Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for
Employees' Compensation, Vijayapura (for short,
'Commissioner') in ECA no.8/2020, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri Sanganagouda V.Biradar, learned counsel
submitted, appeal was by employee for enhancement of
compensation. It was submitted, claimant was employed as
Mason in respondent no.1-Company on daily wages of
Rs.500/-. As per instructions, he was working at bridge work
site. Said construction site was insured with respondent no.3-
insurer for liability under provisions of Employees
Compensation Act. On 15.05.2019, while working at
construction site as per instructions of employer, claimant lost
balance and fell down from roof of godown under construction
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3852
HC-KAR
and sustained grievous injuries to his vertebra. Despite taking
treatment at Sidda Basava Hospital, Talikoti and Bijapur
Multispeciality Hospital, Vijayapura, he did not recover fully and
sustained permanent physical disability. Claiming
compensation, he filed claim petition under Section 22 of
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 against employer and
insurer.
4. On service of summons, respondents no.1 and 2-
employer/Supervisor filed objection admitting that claimant
was employed with it, but denied income as claimed. Asserting
that work site was insured with respondent no.3,
indemnification was claimed. Insurer opposed petition denying
age, occupation and income of claimant. Based on pleadings,
Commissioner framed issues and recorded evidence. Claimant
examined himself and Dr.S.V.Havinal as PWs.1 and 2 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P17. No oral evidence was led by
respondents, but copy of insurance policy was got marked with
consent as Ex.R1.
5. On consideration, Commissioner held relationship of
employee and employer, occurrence of incident during course
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3852
HC-KAR
and out of employment and claimant being entitled for
compensation were established. Determining age of claimant at
35 years, his monthly income at Rs.10,000/-, disability at 20%,
it awarded compensation of Rs.2,36,472/- towards loss of
earning by applying factor of 197.06. Apart from above,
Commissioner awarded Rs.1,17,908/- towards medical
expenses. Dissatisfied with same, appeal was filed.
6. It was submitted as per deposition of PW.2-
Dr.S.V.Havinal, claimant sustained traumatic fracture of D-9
vertebra leading to paraplegia with bowel and bladder
incontinence. In view of above, Commissioner ought to have
considered loss of earning capacity at 100% and awarded
compensation. It was submitted, substantial question of law
about assessment of disability being contrary to material on
record would arise for consideration and sought for answering
same by allowing appeal.
7. On other hand, Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty,
learned counsel for respondent-insurer opposed appeal. It was
submitted, even if there was some scope for enhancement,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3852
HC-KAR
same would be offset by consideration of higher income than
permissible and therefore, there was no merit in appeal.
8. Heard learned counsel. Perused impugned judgment
and award.
9. From above and since appeal is on quantum with
regard to assessment of disability and monthly income,
following substantial question of law would arise for
consideration:
"Whether assessment of monthly income at
Rs.10,000/- and loss of earning capacity at 20%
was contrary to material on record?"
10. From above, relationship of employer-employee,
occurrence of incident during course of employment and out of
employment and insurer being liable to pay compensation are
not in dispute. Only question is about correct monthly income
and extent of loss of earning capacity. Insofar as monthly
income, Commissioner considered Rs.10,000/- as monthly
income notionally. In view of issuance of Notification
no.SO.1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 under Section 4(1B) of
Employees Compensation Act, 1923, Commissioner was not
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3852
HC-KAR
justified in taking income at Rs.10,000/- per month, same has
to be considered at Rs.8,000/-. To establish loss of earning
capacity, claimant relied on deposition of PW.2-Dr.S.V.Havinal.
PW.2 who had issued Ex.P15-Disability certificate deposed that
due to injuries sustained namely, fracture of D9 vertebra,
claimant was suffering from paraplegia with bowel and bladder
incontinence. In case of paraplegia, assessment of earning
capacity has to be at 100%. Commissioner rightly determined
age of claimant as 35 years and applied factor of 197.06. Thus,
re-computation of compensation towards loss of earning
capacity would be as follows:
Rs.8000/- X 60% X 197.06 X 100% = Rs.9,45,888/-.
11. Apart from above, claimant would be entitled for
medical expenses assessed by it at Rs.1,17,908/-. Thus,
claimant would be entitled for total compensation of
Rs.10,63,796/-.
12. Thus, substantial question of law is answered
accordingly.
ORDER
(a) Appeal is allowed. Judgment and award dated
16.10.2023 passed by Principal Senior Civil
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3852
HC-KAR
Judge and Commissioner for Employees
Compensation, Vijayapura, in ECA no.8/2020 is
modified. Claimant is held entitled for total
compensation of Rs.10,63,796/- as against
Rs.3,54,400/- awarded by Commissioner with
interest at 12% per annum from date of
incident i.e., 15.05.2019 till date of deposit.
(b) Respondent-insurer is directed to deposit
enhanced compensation within six weeks.
Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE
NB/SN
Ct: Vk
