[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt Manjula vs The Manager on 24 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:16536
M.F.A. No.1517/2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1517/2020 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. MANJULA
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O P. RAJU
R/O HOPE DIVISION (AREKAD)
HOSALLI ESTATE, TATA COFFEE LTD.
POLLIBETTA, VIRAJPET TALUK
Digitally signed KODAGU DISTRICT.
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM ...APPELLANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY K.B. ADV.,)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE MANAGER
HOPE DIVISION (AREKAD)
HOSALLI ESTATE, POLLI BETTA
VIRAJPET TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT.
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
RICHMOND ROAD BRANCH 9CB0 15
NO.5, RICHMOND PLAZA
BANGALORE-560 025.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV., FOR R2
R1 SERVICE OF NOTICE D/W)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:16536
M.F.A. No.1517/2020
HC-KAR
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 08.07.2019 PASSED IN ECA.NO. 08/2014 ON THE
FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION VIRAJPET, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the injured workmen
challenging the judgment and award dated 08.07.2019
passed in the ECA.No.08/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge
and Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Virajpet,
(for short 'the Tribunal').
2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties, it is taken
up for final disposal.
3. Sri.Narayana Swamy K.B., learned counsel
appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal
without any justifiable reason assessed the disability at
13.33% which is contrary to Ex.P1 and oral evidence of
NC: 2026:KHC:16536
HC-KAR
CW1. It is submitted that the appellant has sustained a
fracture, which has not been properly appreciated by the
Tribunal while determining the extent of disability. In
support of his contention, he places reliance on the
decision in the case of S.Ettiappan v. D.Kumar and
Another1. Accordingly, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.S.V.Hegde Mulkhand, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 supports the impugned
judgment and award of the Tribunal and submits that the
Tribunal is required to assess the loss of earning capacity
based on the medical evidence on record. As per the
evidence of CW1, the doctor has assessed the disability in
the rage of 35% to 40% and has expressed uncertainty
regarding the exact extent of disability. Therefore, the
Tribunal, considering one-third of the said assessment,
has reasonably determined the disability and hence, he
seeks to dismiss the appeal.
SLP(C) Nos.15621/2025 dated 16.10.2025
NC: 2026:KHC:16536
HC-KAR
5. I have heard the arguments on both the sides
and meticulously perused the material available on record
including the Tribunal records.
6. The present appeal is filed only to the extent of
the assessment of disability by the Tribunal at 13.33%.
The primary contention of the appellant is that as per the
disability certificate at Ex.P1, the appellant/workman has
suffered disability to the extent of 50%, and as per the
oral evidence of CW1, who has clearly deposed that the
disability can be assessed between 35% and 40%. Taking
into consideration the nature of the injuries reflected in
Ex.P1 and the oral testimony of CW1, I am of the
considered view that the interest of justice would be met if
the disability is assessed at 35%. The rest of the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered.
7. It is not in dispute that the claimant was aged
about 35 years at the time of the accident; hence, as per
schedule IV of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 the
NC: 2026:KHC:16536
HC-KAR
relevant factor would be 197.06, which has been rightly
considered by the Tribunal. Having reassessed the
disability of the appellant/claimant, the appellant/claimant
is entitled to compensation as under:
Rs.3000 X 60% X197.6 X 35% = Rs.1,24,488/-.
8. In modification of the impugned judgment and
award of the Tribunal to the above extent, the appeal
stands partly allowed. The judgment and award insofar
as it relates to the interest and other findings is affirmed.
The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced
compensation amount with accrued interest before the
Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this judgment after deducting
the amount if any paid.
9. On such deposit, the Tribunal shall release the
entire enhanced compensation amount in favour of the
appellant. The Registry is directed to transmit the records
NC: 2026:KHC:16536
HC-KAR
to the Tribunal forthwith and draw modified award
accordingly.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
