Karnataka High Court: While considering an appeal filed under Section 30(1), Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (EC Act) against the judgment and award passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation, a Single Judge Bench of Tara Vitasta Ganju, J., enhanced the compensation by ₹1,42,067, holding that the appellant’s monthly income ought to have been assessed at ₹8000 in accordance with the applicable notification and that the correct age-related factor of 225.22 under Schedule IV, EC Act should have been applied.
Background
In the present case, the appellant was working under the employment of Respondent 1 as a porter in tractor-trailer. On 22 June 2010, on instructions of his employer, the appellant was on duty for loading and unloading manure for transportation from Hunsekatte to Chattobanahalli and moving in the tractor. When the said tractor reached near Chattobanahalli, the said tractor met with an accident, because of which, it fell down on the roadside channel.
The appellant sustained injuries to his right leg, left leg and sustained fracture of both bones of middle third and left leg and fracture of both bones of middle third of left leg and injury over other parts of his body. He was immediately shifted to a hospital and thereafter shifted to another hospital where he underwent operation and surgeries.
On account of the accidental injuries sustained, the appellant filed a claim petition.
By the impugned order, the compensation of ₹248842 was awarded in favour of the appellant with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum directing that payment be made by the owner of the offending vehicle.
The appellant challenged the award on the following 2 grounds:
-
His income was wrongly taken at ₹4,500 per month, although a Notification dated 31 May 2010 fixed the monthly wages at ₹8,000. The factor of “225” was incorrectly applied as the appropriate factor prescribed for the age of 19 years under Schedule IV, EC Act is “225.22”.
The respondent submitted that the monthly income ought to have been assessed at ₹8000.
Analysis and Decision
The Court stated that income taken by the Tribunal, in view of the Notification dated 31 May 2010, issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment and published in the Extraordinary Gazette, should have been taken at ₹8000 per month as the accident occurred in 2010.
Thus, taking into consideration 60 per cent of the notional income at ₹8000 per month, disability at 30 per cent and adopting the factor of 225.22 as per Schedule IV, the Court enhanced appellant’s compensation by ₹142067, along with interest at 12 per cent per annum.
The Court referred to V. Renganathan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2569 and stated that the Respondent 2-Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the enhanced compensation as awarded by the High Court to the appellant and recover the same from the Respondent 1-owner of the tractor. The High Court directed the insurance company to pay the same within 8 weeks.
Further, the Court condoned the delay of 578 days in filing the appeal and clarified that appellant would not be entitled to any interest on the enhanced amount for the delayed period of 578 days.
Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal in part.
[N. Suresh Naik v. Manikyam K., MFA No. 677 of 2019 (WC), decided on 28-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Harsha A. K., Advocate
For the Respondent: Balu Mahendra Y. M. and H. S. Lingaraj, Advocates
