[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Shruthi T S vs Sri Umesh Hegde on 31 January, 2026
-1-
MFA No.5212 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.5212/2024(ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SHRUTHI T.S.
W/O LATE RAMESH H.G.
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
HOUSEWIFE
2. MASTER PRANAG H.R.
S/O LATE RAMESH H.G.
AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS
3. MASTER PRANVITH R. GOWDA
S/O LATE RAMESH H.G.
AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS
4. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O GUNDAPPA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
APPELLANT NOS. 2 & 3 ARE MINORS
REP. BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND
AND NATURAL MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN
SMT. SHRUTHI T.S. 1ST APPELLANT.
ALL ARE R/AT: SAGARA,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
NOW R/O 2ND CROSS,
SHANTHAMMA LAYOUT,
SHIVAMOGGA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. M.V. MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
MFA No.5212 of 2024
AND:
1. SRI. UMESH HEGDE
AGED MAJOR
M/S. HEDGE BULK CARRIERS,
K.K. TOWERS, MRPL ROAD,
KANA SURATHKAL,
MANGALURU-575 002.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
COMPANY LIMITED
SURATHKAL, DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT-575 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DTD:02.01.2024 PASSED IN ECA NO.06/2021 ON THE FILE OF
THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, C/C.II
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
14.01.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, P SREE SUDHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
-3-
MFA No.5212 of 2024
CAV JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated
02.01.2024 passed in ECA No.6/2021 by the II Additional
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Shivamogga. One Ramesh
H.G., son of Gundappa, met with an accident on 21.04.2019
and died subsequently. His wife, children and mother filed claim
petition claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. The
Tribunal, considering the entire evidence on record, granted
compensation of Rs.7,59,000/- with interest at 12% per annum
after 30 days from the date of accident till realization.
2. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed
seeking enhancement of compensation in which it is contended
that Ramesh was working as driver under respondent No.1
from past 7 to 8 years and earning a salary of Rs.13,225/- per
month and Rs.200/- per day as per Ex.P.22. The claimants
examined R.W.1-author of the document, but the Tribunal has
taken his income as Rs.8,000/- per month, which is on lower
side. Thus, requested for enhancement of the compensation.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance
company contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the
income of the deceased as Rs.8,000/- per month based on the
notification of the Central Government issued on 31.05.2010
and therefore, it needs no interference.
4. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for both
sides.
5. Section 4 of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923
reads as follows:
4. Amount of compensation.- (1) Subject to
the provisions of this Act, the amount of
compensation shall be as follows, namely:--
(a) where death results an from the injury :
an amount equal to [fifty percent] of the
monthly wages of the deceased [employee]
multiplied by the relevant factor;
or
an amount of [one lakh and twenty thousand
rupees], whichever is more;
(b) where permanent total disablement
results from the injury : an amount equal to
[sixty percent] of the monthly wages of the
injured[employee] multiplied by the relevant
factor;
Or
an amount of [one lakh and forty thousand
rupees], whichever is more;
[Provided that the Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
from time to time, enhance the amount of
compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and
(b).]
6. Learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
K. Sivaraman and others Vs. P. Satishkumar and
another1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as
under:
"19.xxxx We are finally determining the right
of workmen today. The Act is a special
legislation for the benefit of the labour.
Keeping in view the scheme of the Act we are
of the view that the only interpretation which
can be given to the amendment is that if any
benefit is conferred on the workmen and the
said benefit is available on the date when the
case is finally adjudicated, the said benefit
would be extended to the workmen."
"28. This Court held, in line with settled
precedent of this Court, that where a
legislation confers a benefit on some persons,
(ii) without inflicting a corresponding
detriment on some other persons or the public
generally and (iii) where the conferral of such
benefit appears to be the intention of the
legislature, the presumption of prospective
application may stand displaced. Though
amendments enhancing the compensation
payable under the 1923 Act confer a benefit
upon employees, a corresponding burden is
imposed on employers to pay a higher rate of
compensation. It is presumably for this reason
that the three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Valsala and the Kerala High Court in Alavi held
that the benefit of an amendment enhancing
the rate of compensation does not have
retrospective application to accidents that took
place prior to the coming into force of the
amendment. Further, as we have already
noted, there is nothing in Act 45 of 2009,
(2020)4 SCC 594
either express or implied, to denote an
intention of the legislature to confer the
benefit of the amendment to accidents that
took place prior to its coming into force."
7. Relying upon the same judgment, the Division Bench
of this Court in the case of Superintendent Engineer and
others Vs. Smt. D.L. Kavitha2, has held as under:
"19. xxxx Act is a welfare legislation
for the benefit of the
workmen/employees, therefore, the
said provisions have to be interpreted to
serve the welfare of the employees.
Sec.4(1)(a) of the Act does not state
that an amount equal to fifty percent of
monthly wages, as prescribed in the
notification under Sec.4(1B) of the Act,
must be awarded. Further, the word
'Wages' is not defined to say that wages
as notified by the Central Government
under Section 4(1B). Therefore, there is
no merit in the contention that the
wages shall be restricted only to the
amount notified under the notification."
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rani and
Others Vs. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited3,
in which it was held that reduction in compensation from
Rs.8,79,800/- to Rs.5,54,875 on basis of pleadings in written
statement of claimants, considering monthly wages far below
MFA No.1247 of 2016 decided on 08.07.2023
(2023) 16 SCC 573
minimum wage of Rs.8,000/- as notified in Gazette Noti. Dt.
31.05.2010, held, unsustainable.
9. In the present case, Ramesh was working as a driver
and the claimants examined employer as R.W.1. Respondent
No.2 did not step into the witness box to establish their
defence. It is stated that Ramesh was earning Rs.15,000/- per
month and daily batta of Rs.200/-. Ex.P.22 is the salary
certificate dated 20.08.2022 in which it was stated that Ramesh
was getting a salary of Rs.13,225/- per month with a daily
batta of Rs.300/-. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to
take his salary as Rs.13,225/- per month and 50% of the same
comes to Rs.6,613/-. He was aged 38 years as per Ex.P.23
and the appropriate factor is 189.56, and the compensation
comes to Rs.12,53,560/-. Thus, the compensation is enhanced
from Rs.7,59,000/- to Rs.12,53,560/- .
10. In the result, the following order is passed:
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Claimants are entitled for the total
compensation of Rs.12,53,560/- with interest at 12% per
annum after 30 days from the date of accident till realization.
(iii) The respondent insurance company might have
deposited the aforesaid amount before the Tribunal and
therefore, they are directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation of Rs. 4,94,560/- within one month on the date
of this order.
(iv) On such deposit, petitioner No.4-mother of the
deceased is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- with interest
accrued on it. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were minors in the year
2021 and each of them are entitled for an amount of
Rs.4,00,000/- and the said amount is to be kept in Fixed
Deposit in a nationalilsed bank till they attain the age of
majority, and petitioner No.1, the mother of petitioner Nos.2
and 3, is permitted to withdraw interest on the said fixed
deposit, once in 3 months, to meet out their day to day
expenses. Petitioner No.1 is permitted to withdraw the balance
amount along with interest accrued on it.
Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA)
JUDGE
CS
CT:NR
