[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Goneppa S/O Hanumappa Maligoudar vs Abdul Rajak S/O. Hajarat Sab Chaudari on 23 January, 2026
-1-
MFA No.100750 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100750 OF 2020 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. GONEPPA S/O. HANUMAPPA MALIGOUDAR,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.
2. SMT. SHARANAVVA W/O. GONEPPA MALIGOUDAR,
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK,
BOTH ARE R/O: RAJIVGANDHI NAGAR,
LAKAMANAHALLI, DHARWAD,
DIST: DHARWAD-580 010.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. G.R.TURAMARI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ABDUL RAJAK S/O. HAJARAT SAB CHAUDARI,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC: TRANPORT BUSINESS,
R/O: H.NO.112, JANGLIPETH,
KALMESHWAR NAGAR,
DIST: DHARWAD - 580 012.
2. SRI. RAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
MOHANKUMAR
E/8, EPIP, RIICO, INDUSTRIAL AREA,
B SHELAR
SITAPURA, JAIPUR, STATE RAJASTHAN - 302 022.
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.01.27 16:48:08
+0530
NOTICE TO R1-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(aa) OF THE
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFIED THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AND ADDITIONAL MACT, DHARWAD, DATED
30.05.2019 IN ECA NO.13/2014 AND AWARD THE COMPENSATION AS
PRAYED FOR IN THE CLAIM PETITION, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
-2-
MFA No.100750 of 2020
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 06.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the
Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, by the appellants, who are
the parents of the deceased Shashikumar Maligoudar,
questioning the Judgment and Award dated 30.05.2019 passed
by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, Dharwad,
('the Commissioner' for short) in ECA No.13/2014.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are
that:
3. The appellants' son Shashikumar was working as a
cleaner under respondent No.1 in lorry bearing registration
No.KA-25/C-981 and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month along
with Rs.20/- per day as bhatta. He was the sole earning member
of the family and died in a road traffic accident on 21.08.2009
during the course of employment. The claim petition was filed
under Section 22 of the Employees' Compensation Act seeking
compensation. The Commissioner, after considering the oral and
documentary evidence, held that there existed an employer and
employee relationship and that the accident occurred during the
course of employment. The Commissioner assessed the monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- and awarded
compensation of Rs.4,55,440/- with interest at 12% per annum
from the date of accident.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the
present appeal contending that the Commissioner erred in not
considering the daily bhatta of Rs.20/- while calculating the
monthly income and, therefore, the compensation awarded is on
the lower side.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
daily bhatta forms part of wages and exclusion of the same has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is argued that the deceased
was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month and the award
requires modification.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company supported the impugned award and
submitted that there is no documentary evidence to establish
payment of bhatta. It is contended that the Commissioner has
rightly assessed the income based on available material and no
interference is warranted.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-
claimants and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance
Company.
8. The substantial question of law framed in this appeal
is:
"Whether the Commissioner was justified in
taking the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.4,000/- while determining compensation?"
9. It is not in dispute that the deceased was working as
a cleaner under respondent No.1 and that the accident occurred
during the course of employment. The age of the deceased and
the relevant factor applied by the Commissioner are also not in
dispute. Though PW-1 has stated in his evidence that the
deceased was paid daily bhatta, admittedly no documentary
proof has been produced to substantiate the same. The
Commissioner has taken note of this aspect and has assessed
the income based on the material available on record. The
determination of wages by the Commissioner is based on
appreciation of evidence and it does not suffer from perversity or
illegality. The Employees' Compensation Act permits interference
by this Court only when a substantial question of law arises.
10. The question raised by the appellants regarding
inclusion of bhatta is essentially a question of fact. The
Commissioner, having considered the evidence, has chosen not
to include the bhatta for want of proof. The appellants failed to
substantiate the same in this appeal also. In view of the same,
this Court finds no error in the said approach. The compensation
awarded by the Commissioner is just and reasonable having
regard to the age of the deceased, the income assessed, and the
statutory provisions under Section 4 of the Employees'
Compensation Act.
11. This Court does not find any substantial question of
law warranting interference with the impugned Judgment and
Award.
12. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the
following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is dismissed.
ii) The Judgment and Award dated 30.05.2019 passed
by the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation,
Dharwad, in ECA No.13/2014 is hereby confirmed.
iii) The amount, if any, deposited before this Court shall
be transmitted to the jurisdictional Commissioner for
disbursement, in accordance with law.
iv) The trial court records shall be transmitted to the
jurisdictional court, forthwith.
Sd/-
(DR. K.MANMADHA RAO)
JUDGE
MBS
CT:VP
