Karnataka High Court
Saberabegum And Ors vs Mohammad Siraj And Anr on 19 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718
MFA No. 201065 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201065 OF 2019 (WC)
BETWEEN:
1. SABERABEGUM W/O HAJISAB @ HAJIMALANG
BAIRODAGI @ BAIRAMADAGI,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
2. SHREEN D/O HAJISAB @ HAJIMALANG BAIRODAGI
@ BAIRAMADAGI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
3. HAJISAB @ HAJIMALANG S/O AMINSAB BAIRODAGI
@ BAIRAMADAGI,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
ALL R/O RAMPUR P.A., TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA
UDAGI ...APPELLANTS
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. BABU H. METAGUDDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MOHAMMAD SIRAJ S/O SINKANDAR KORABU,
AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: SELF EMPLOYED,
R/O RAMPUR (PA) UKP, TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
2. THE MANAGER LEGAL,
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PLOT NO.3, SECTOR 29, GURGAON-122 001,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718
MFA No. 201065 of 2019
(HARYANA).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADV. FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.02.2019 PASSED IN ECA
NO.3/2016 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AND
COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION AT
SINDAGI. AND ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION FROM
RS.7,69,645/- WITH 6% INTEREST TO RS.16,50,000/- WITH
12% INTEREST.
THIS APPEAL 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)
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Being aggrieved by the judgment in ECA
No.3/2016 by learned Senior Civil Judge & JMFC Sindagi,
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718
dated 12.02.2019, the petitioners therein are before this
Court seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that on
31.07.2015, the deceased Mohammad Mosim was
working as a driver on the Car bearing No.KA-28/N-6167
owned by respondent No.1 and he was a paid driver. At
about 1:30 PM the said vehicle met with an accident and
the deceased Mohammad Mosim died during the course of
employment. The petitioners, who were the dependents
of the deceased approached the learned Commissioner
under the provisions of the Employees Compensation Act,
contending that the deceased was getting a salary of
Rs.12,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as batta.
They also contended that the diseased was aged 24
years, was a bachelor and as such petitioners being the
dependents are entitled for compensation.
4. The respondent No.1-owner cum employer in
his written statement admitted that the diseased was his
employee and that he was paid a sum of Rs.8000/- per
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718
month and Rs.100 per day as batta. However, the
respondent No.1 did not enter the witness box to affirm
his contention taken up in the written statement. The
learned Commissioner, after enquiry came to the
conclusion that there being no material on record to show
about the salary of the deceased, concluded that the
salary was Rs.7,000/- per month and calculated the
compensation amount. Being aggrieved, the petitioners
are before this Court in this appeal contending that the
learned Commissioner could not have reduced the salary
below the salary notified under Section 4(1-B) of the E.C.
Act.
5. After hearing learned counsels appearing for
both the sides, this Court is of the view that the
notification issued by the Central Government under
Section 4(1-B) of the E.C. Act, provides that in the
absence of any cogent evidence regarding the salary
being paid, the salary notified under Section 4(1-B) has to
be adopted. In other words, the wages notified under
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718
Section 4(1-B) of the Act is the lower limit of the salary
while awarding the compensation. Under these
circumstances, the learned Commissioner could not have
reduced the wages below the wages notified under
Section 4(1-B) of the Act.
6. Though an attempt is made by the learned
counsel for the appellants that Bata of Rs.100/- having
been admitted by respondent No.1 is also to be included
as salary of the deceased, there is no cogent evidence in
respect of the same. The admissions given by respondent
No.1 in his written statement cannot act to the prejudice
of respondent No.2- Insurance Company. Therefore, the
compensation is recalculated as: Rs.8,000/- x 50% x
218.47=Rs.8,73,880/-. In addition to it, a sum of
Rs.5,000/- has to be awarded towards funeral expenses
and as such, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of
Rs.8,78,880/- instead of Rs.7,69,645/- determined by the
learned Commissioner.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1718
7. Sofar as the interest is concerned, the
provisions of Section 3 of the E.C. Act, lay down the
principles governing the interest. Therefore, the interest
on the above amount shall be paid at the rate of 12%
from the 30th day after the date of the accident. Hence,
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is allowed in part.
The petitioners are entitled for a sum of
Rs.8,78,880/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from 30th
day after the date of accident till its deposit before the
learned Commissioner.
Respondent No.2 shall deposit the compensation
amount within a period of Eight weeks.
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
SMP,TSN
CT: AK
