[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Shri.Ulavappa on 17 February, 2026
-1-
MFA No.103214 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103214 OF 2016 (WC)
BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
1ST FLOOR, MUDALAGI BUILDING,
CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
REGIONAL OFFICE, MOTOR THIRD PARTY
HUB OFFICE, SRINATH COMPLEX, 2ND FLOOR,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580029,
REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R.R. MANE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. ULAVAPPA GURUSIDDAPPA TIGADI,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O: SAMPAGAON, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591125.
2. SRI. ABDUL SALAM M. MUJAWAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI-590010.
Digitally signed
by ...RESPONDENTS
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Location: High
(NOTICE TO R1-SERVED;
Court of
Karnataka, NOTICE TO R2-DISPENSED WITH)
Dharwad Bench
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
30(1)(A)(AA) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT 1923,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 30.01.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF 1ST ADDL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS
COMPENSATION BELAGAVI IN ECA NO.431/2014 AND TO PASS SUCH
OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, INCLUDING
THE COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-2-
MFA No.103214 of 2016
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 05.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance
Company under Section 30(1)(a)(aa) of the Employees'
Compensation Act, 1923, challenging the judgment and
award dated 30.01.2016 passed by the Court of the I Addl.
Senior Civil Judge & Commissioner for Employees'
Compensation, Belagavi, in E.C.A. No.431/2014.
2. Respondent No.1 filed a claim petition before the
Commissioner contending that he was working as a driver
under respondent No.2 on a goods tanker bearing No.KA-
22/6401 and that on 25.05.2010, while returning after
loading damber on NH-17 near Ottinence Paduary village, a
bus coming from the opposite direction dashed against the
tanker, as a result of which he sustained injuries. It was
contended that the accident arose during the course of and
out of his employment and that he suffered permanent
disablement. The owner of the vehicle was placed ex-parte.
The present appellant contested the claim disputing the
jural relationship, nature of injuries, extent of disability and
quantum of compensation.
3. Upon appreciation of the evidence, the
Commissioner held that the claimant was aged about 40
years, i.e., monthly wages could be taken at Rs.5,000/- and
that he had suffered permanent partial disablement to the
extent of 10% to the whole body due to the injuries
sustained in the accident. Based on these findings, the
Commissioner computed the compensation payable on
account of loss of earning capacity at Rs.55,251/-.
However, the Commissioner proceeded to hold that as per
Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, the compensation payable would
be 60% of the monthly wages multiplied by the relevant
factor or Rs.1,40,000/- whichever is more and accordingly
awarded compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at
12% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the
Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that
the Commissioner, having categorically held that the
claimant suffered only permanent partial disablement of
10%, committed a serious error of law in applying Section
4(1)(b) of the Act, which is applicable only in cases of
permanent total disablement. It was submitted that the
correct provision applicable is Section 4(1)(c) and that the
compensation payable is only Rs.55,251/- as assessed by
the Commissioner himself. It was therefore contended that
the impugned award is contrary to law and liable to be set
aside.
5. Respondent No.1, though served, has remained
unrepresented. Respondent No.2 was ex-parte before the
Commissioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurance Company and perused the material on record.
7. Having carefully perused the records and the
impugned judgment, this Court finds that there is no
dispute with regard to the age of the claimant, his monthly
wages or the extent of disability. The Commissioner has
recorded a clear finding that the claimant suffered
permanent partial disablement of 10% to the whole body.
Section 4(1)(b) of the Employees' Compensation Act applies
only when permanent total disablement results from the
injury. In cases of permanent partial disablement,
compensation has to be determined strictly in accordance
with Section 4(1)(c), proportionate to the loss of earning
capacity.
8. In the present case, after correctly calculating
the compensation payable at Rs.55,251/-, the
Commissioner committed a manifest error in law by
applying Section 4(1)(b) and awarding the minimum
compensation prescribed for permanent total disablement.
Such application of law is wholly unsustainable and amounts
to misinterpretation of the statutory provision. The error
goes to the root of the matter and warrants interference
under Section 30 of the Act.
9. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed in part.
ii) The judgment and award dated
30.01.2016 passed in E.C.A.No.431/2014 is set
aside.
iii) Claimant-respondent No.1 is entitled
to compensation of Rs.55,251/- with interest at
12% per annum from one month after the date
of accident till the date of deposit.
iv) The appellant-Insurance Company
shall deposit the modified compensation amount,
if not already deposited, within six weeks from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
v) Any excess amount deposited shall be
refunded to the appellant.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MBS,CT:VP
