[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Afzal @ Afzal Khan vs Sambhaji And Anr on 20 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:347
MFA No. 202013 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202013 OF 2017 (WC)
BETWEEN:
AFZAL @ AFZAL KHAN
S/O SHABBIR @ SAHBBIR KHAN PATHAN,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O INDI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI CHANDRAKANT LAXMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SAMBHAJI S/O SHIVAJI SALUNKHE,
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
Digitally signed (OWNER OF THE MAHINDRA MAXIMO
by LUCYGRACE
NO.MH.13/TC.175),
Location: HIGH
COURT OF R/O A/P. GARADI, TQ. PANDARPUR,
KARNATAKA DIST. SOLAPUR-413 306,
MAHARASHTRA STATE.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
2ND FLOOR, HOSHAMI MANJIL, MADIWAL ARKHED,
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM-590 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANGANAGOUDA V. BIRADAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:347
MFA No. 202013 of 2017
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
12.06.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND COMMISSINER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION,
VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPUR IN ECA NO.203/2014 AND MODIFY
THE SAID JUDGMENT/ORDER BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO RS.10,00,000/- AS CLAIMED BY
THE APPEALLANT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. This appeal is arising out of the judgment and
order dated 12.06.2017 in ECA No.203/2014 on the file of
the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for
Employees Compensation, Vijayapura (for short 'the
Commissioner'), partly allowing the claim petition and
awarding compensation to the claimant.
3. It is the case of the claimant that, he was
working as a driver in Jeep bearing Reg. No.MH.13/TC.175
belonging to respondent No.1. It is further stated that, on
NC: 2026:KHC-K:347
HC-KAR
21.11.2012, when the claimant was proceeding on
Solapur-Tuljapur road, the alleged accident occurred and
as a result of the same, he sustained fracture of right
thigh and such other injuries. Hence, the claimant filed a
claim petition in ECA No.203/2014 before the learned
Commissioner, seeking compensation.
4. In order to establish the case, the claimant
examined himself as PW.1 and got marked six documents
as Exs.P1 to P6. The respondents have examined one
witness as RW.1 and got marked three documents as
Exs.R1 to R3.
5. The learned Commissioner, by judgment dated
12.06.2017, awarded global compensation of Rs.41,000
with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the
accident till realisation. Feeling aggrieved by the
inadequacy of the compensation awarded by the
Commissioner, the claimant has preferred this appeal.
6. I have heard Sri Koujalagi Chandrakant
Laxman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:347
HC-KAR
Sri Sanganagouda V. Biradar, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.1 and Sri Sudarshan M., learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing
for the appellant that, taking into consideration the
injuries sustained by the claimant, the compensation
awarded by the Commissioner is inadequate. It is also
argued by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant
that, the finding recorded by the Commissioner requires to
be interfered with, as the respondent No.2 has been
absolved from indemnifying the respondent No.1 and
therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
8. Per contra, Sri Sudarshan M., learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.1 sought to justify the
impugned judgment passed by the Commissioner.
9. This Court vide order dated 08.04.2025,
formulated the following substantial question of law:
"Whether the learned Commissioner is
justified in taking the wages of the petitioner at
NC: 2026:KHC-K:347
HC-KAR
Rs.4,500/- per month despite the notification
under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, prescribe
wages at Rs.8,000/- per month?"
10. Taking into consideration the finding recorded
by the Commissioner and the injuries sustained by the
claimant as well as the fact that the claimant has not
proved the disability by examining the treating doctor,
I am of the view that, the global compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the
date of accident till realization is to be awarded in this
appeal, in the ends of justice.
11. Insofar as dismissing the claim petition against
respondent No.2 is concerned, the judgment of the
Commissioner requires to be interfered with by following
the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of Gurmail Singh vs. Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, reported in 2019 ACJ
713. Accordingly, respondent No.2-Insurance Company is
directed to pay the compensation to the appellant and
NC: 2026:KHC-K:347
HC-KAR
thereafter recover the same from respondent No.1-owner
of the vehicle.
12. With this observation, the substantial question
of law is answered accordingly and the appeal is allowed in
part.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
LG
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43
