KIRTHI KUMAR H D vs P SRINIVASA RAO
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1238 OF 2023 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
KIRTHI KUMAR H.D.,
S/O H.M. DHARME GOWDA,
AGED 40 YEARS,
R/AT NO.34, NEAR SIDDAGANGA SCHOOL,
RUKMINI NAGAR, BELMAR LAYOUT,
NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 73.
PERMANENT R/AT HIJJANAHALLI,
MAGAERI POST,
SHAKALESHPUR TALUK,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI SHRIPAD V. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. P. SRINIVASA RAO,
MANAGING PARTNER,
NEW MORNING STAR TRAVELS,
NO.B-5, 33, SWISS COMPLEX,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 01.
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MOTOR DEALER DIVISION,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
6TH FLOOR, HUDSON CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
BY ITS MANAGER.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
(BY SRI KRISHNA B.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED
23.02.2023)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATON ACT, 1923 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 28.04.2022 PASSED IN E.C.A NO.6/2020 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL JUDGE AND MEMBER, MACT,
COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, BENGALURU (SCCH-18), 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 MRS. JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is the appeal filed under Section 30(1) of
the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (in short, 'the
Act') by the appellant/claimant challenging the Judgment
and award dated 28.04.2022 in ECA No.6/2020 on the file
of III Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
and Commissioner under Employees' Compensation Act,
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) (in short 'the
Commissioner').
2. The parties would be referred with their ranks,
as they were before the Commissioner for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
3. The claimant has filed the claim petition before
the Commissioner under Section 22 of the Act praying for
the compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by
him in the course of employment under respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company of respondent
No.1.
4. It is the contention of the claimant that on
03.11.2019 at about 04:00 a.m., when the claimant was
driving the passenger Bus bearing registration No.KA-51-
AE-1750 on NH-50 from Bengaluru to Koppala, near
Kananakatte Village, Jagalur Taluk, Davanagere District,
said Bus met with an accident with a lorry bearing
registration No.NL-01-Q-848, which was coming from
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
opposite direction. Due to the accident, the claimant has
sustained - (a) fracture of right acetabulum (b) multiple
fractures involving right Iliac bone and (c) fracture right
transverse process of L2 - L5 Vertebrae. He has taken
treatment in the hospital and hence claimed the
compensation under different heads. He further contended
that he was getting salary of ` 30,000/- per month from
respondent No.1.
5. After service of notice, respondent No.1 not
contested the petiiton and only respondent No.2 appeared
and filed objection statement denying all the contentions
taken by the claimant in his claim petition.
6. After recording evidence of both sides, hearing
arguments of both sides, the Tribunal concluded that there
is 9% disability to the whole body by taking his income at
`
12,000/- per month and held that the claimant is entitled
for a total compensation of ` 1,33,115/- from the
respondents under the following heads:
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
Notional monthly income - ` 12,000/-
1 ` 1,24,506/-
(7,200 x 192.14 x 9/100)
2 Medical expenses ` 8,609/-
`1, `1,33,115 `1, `1, 33,115 33,115/- 33,115
Total
7. Not satisfied with the said compensation, the
claimant is before this Court.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant
Sri Shripad V. Shastri appeared through VC and would
submit that the income of the claimant was taken at lower
side by the Commissioner and he has not applied the
percentage of disability in an appropriate manner. The
evidence of the doctor reveals that there is difficulty in
driving to the claimant by considering his age, nature of
injuries, etc., which was not appreciated by the
Commissioner in an appropriate manner. Hence, there
arises substantial questions of law and thus the
compensation shall be enhanced to the claimant by
framing substantial questions of law.
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
9. The learned counsel for respondent No.2
Sri B.S. Krishna would submit that the appeal is filed
under Section 30(1) of the Act. Thus, only if there are
substantial questions of law, the appellate Court could
interfere with the judgment of the Commissioner. In this
case, no substantial questions of law would arise. Even as
per the arguments of the learned counsel for the
appellant, he has raised only on factum of the judgment of
the Commissioner and not on any point of law.
Furthermore, even on merits, the compensation awarded
by the Commissioner is just and reasonable and it has
considered the evidence of doctor in an appropriate
manner and also fixed the salary of the claimant at
` 12,000/- by assigning cogent reasons, which requires the
interference.
10. Heard arguments and perused records.
11. Under Section 30(1) of the Employees'
Compensation Act (in short, 'the Act'), the party to the
claim petition is having right to prefer the appeal only if
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
any of the orders mentioned in Section 30(1) (a) to (e) of
the Act would arise. Even to consider those orders, there
shall be substantial questions of law; otherwise the appeal
is not entertainable.
Hence, reading of Section 30(1) Employees’ Compensation
Act, 1923 at this juncture is very much required. It reads
as follows:
“30. Appeals.— (1) An appeal shall lie to the High Court
from the following orders of a Commissioner, namely:—
(a) an order awarding as compensation a lump
sum whether by way of redemption of a
half-monthly payment or otherwise or
disallowing a claim in full or in part for a
lump sum;
[(aa) an order awarding interest or penalty
under section 4A;]
(b) an order refusing to allow redemption of a
half-monthly payment;
(c) an order providing for the distribution of
compensation among the dependants of a
2
deceased [employee], or disallowing any
claim of a person alleging himself to be such
dependant;
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
(d) an order allowing or disallowing any claim for
the amount of an indemnity under the
provisions of sub-section (2) of section 12;
or
(e) an order refusing to register a memorandum
of agreement or registering the same or
providing for the registration of the same
subject to conditions:
Provided that no appeal shall lie against any order
unless a substantial question of law is involved in the
appeal, and in the case of an order other than an order
such as is referred to in clause (b), unless the amount in
3
dispute in the appeal is not less than [ten thousand
rupees or such higher amount as the Central
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,
specify]:
Provided further that no appeal shall lie in any case
in which the parties have agreed to abide by the decision
of the Commissioner, or in which the order of the
Commissioner gives effect to an agreement come to by
the parties:
4
[Provided further that no appeal by an employer
under clause (a) shall lie unless the memorandum of
appeal is accompanied by a certificate by the
Commissioner to the effect that the appellant has
deposited with him the amount payable under the order
appealed against.]”
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
12. The appeal provided under Section 30 of the Act
to the High Court against the order of the Commissioner is
not like a regular first appeal akin to Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which can be heard both on
facts and law. The appellate jurisdiction of the High Court
to decide the appeal is confined only to examine the
substantial questions of law arising in the case.
13. In this regard, this Court places reliance on the
judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in Fulmati Dhramdev
1
Yadav & Anr. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., and
wherein at paragraph No.21 reads as follows:
“21. The other ground making the order under
challenge, amenable to interference when the scope of
jurisdiction is circumscribed by it being exercised only in
cases of "substantial question of law", is perversity in the
findings. Here, the impugned Judgment does not, even
remotely, reflect the observation that the findings arrived
at by the Commissioner are perverse. The difference,
between the two Judgments, i.e., the order of the
Commissioner and the judgment in First Appeal, was on
the point of the employer- employee relationship having
1
Civil Appeal No.4713 of 2023(Arising out of SLP(C) Np.17963 of 2019
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
been established. The Commissioner held such
relationship to have been established however, the appeal
Court observed that "claimants have clearly failed to
prove this aspect".”
14. This Court also places reliance on the judgment
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
2
Maharajagrasen Hospital v/s Tulsi Joshi and Others
wherein at paragraph No.16 reads as follows:
"16. As held in Northeast Karnataka Road
Transport Corporation v. Sujatha (2019) 11 SCC 514, an
appeal under Section 30 of the EC Act would lie if only a
substantial question of law arises. In this case, as noticed
earlier, the learned Commissioner has erred in relying on
Section 106 of the Evidence Act to conclude that the
burden of proof lay on the management to prove that the
deceased was not their employee. It is well settled that
the initial burden to prove the foundational facts that the
deceased was employed/engaged either directly or
through a contractor by the respondent/management is
on the claimants. It is only when the said aspect is
established, the onus of proof would shift to the
respondent/management to rebut the same or
rebut/discredit the case put in by the claimants. That
being the position, the conclusion based on a wrong
understanding or interpretation of law did raise a
2
2026 AAC 226 (Del):: AIR Online 2025 DEL 1757
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
substantial question of law in the appeal and hence
arguments to the contrary are liable to be rejected."
15. This Court places reliance on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shakuntala
Chandrakant Shreshti v/s Prabhakar Maruti Garvali
3
& Another wherein at paragraph Nos.42 and 43 held as
follows:
" 42. A question of law would arise when the same
is not dependent upon examination of evidence, which
may not require any fresh investigation of fact. A question
of law would, however, arise when the finding is perverse
in the sense that no legal evidence was brought on record
or jurisdictional facts were not brought on record.
43. We are not oblivious of the proposition of law
as was stated by Frankfurter, J. in J.J. O'Leary v. Brown-
Pacific-Maxon Inc. [95 L Ed 483 : 340 US 504 (1950)]
that the court will not disturb a finding of an
administrative tribunal when two views are possible and
only because the appellate court can take a contrary view.
But in the instant case, the Commissioner did not go into
the jurisdictional facts nor arrived at any finding based on
any legal evidence in regard to the causal connection
between the employment and the death."
3
(200) 11 SCC 668
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
16. This Court also places reliance on the judgment
of the division bench of this Court in the case of North
East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation vs.
4
Sujatha at paragraph Nos.9 to 11 it is held as under:
“9. At the outset, we may take note of the fact,
being a settled principle, that the question as to whether
the employee met with an accident, whether the accident
occurred during the course of employment, whether it
arose out of an employment, how and in what manner
the accident occurred, who was negligent in causing the
accident, whether there existed any relationship of
employee and employer, what was the age and
monthly salary of the employee, how many are the
dependants of the deceased employee, the extent
of disability caused to the employee due to injuries
suffered in an accident , whether there was any
insurance coverage obtained. by the employer to cover
the incident, etc., are some of the material issues which
arise for the just decision of the Commissioner in a claim
petition when an employee suffers any bodily injury or
dies during the course of his employment and he/his LRs
sue/s his employer to claim compensation under the Act.
10. The aforementioned questions are
essentially the questions of fact and, therefore,
they are required to be proved with the aid of
4
2019 ACJ 29
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
evidence Once they are proved either way, the
findings recorded thereon are regarded as the
findings of fact.
11. The appeal provided under section 30 of the
Act to the High Court against the order of the
Commissioner lies only against the specific orders set out
in clauses (a) to (e) of section 30 (1) of the Act with a
further rider contained in first proviso to the section that
the appeal must involve substantial question of law.”
(Emphasis supplied)
17. This Court also places reliance on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Golla Rajanna
and Others vs. Divisional Manager, United India
5
Insurance Company Limited and Another wherein at
paragraph Nos.9 and 10 reads as follows:
"9. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner,
having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on
the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is
purely a question of fact. There is no case for the
insurance company that the finding is based on no
evidence at all or that it is perverse.
10. Under the scheme of the Act, the Workmen's
Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts.
Parliament has thought it fit to restrict the scope of the
5
AIR 2016 SC 5382
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
appeal only to substantial questions of law, being a
welfare legislation."
18. On careful perusal of all the above said
judgments, and the plain reading of Section 30 of the Act,
it is made clear that if the finding of the Commissioner is
perverse , not at all in accordance with the norms
prescribed under the law and facts were appreciated
differently not as per law; then only the appellate Court
can interfere with the judgment of the Commissioner.
19. With this background, the judgment of the
Commissioner is to be analyzed. By examining the
evidence of the claimant and the doctor, the Commissioner
came to the conclusion that as per the evidence of doctor
there is 27% disability to particular limb and the
Commissioner has taken it as 9% to the whole body, but
the doctor stated it as 14%. The Commissioner has
assigned cogent reasons to come to the aforesaid
conclusion. Furthermore, even though the claimant has
stated that his income is ` 30,000/- per month and
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
deposed in his cross-examination that every month his
salary of ` 30,000/- is being credited to his bank account,
he has not made any efforts to produce the said bank
account details or not made any efforts to examine the
owner or to produce the pay slip or any other documents
`
to show that his income was 30,000/- per month as
alleged by him.
20. In the absence of any documentary evidence,
the Commissioner has taken the income of claimant at
` 12,000/- by analyzing the Central Government
Notification regarding the income of skilled worker at
`
8,000/- per month. Thus, there is no perversity in the
judgment of the Commissioner. He has applied the point of
law in accordance with law and the facts were appreciated
in an appropriate manner. Section 4 of the Act was
properly interpreted.
21. In the Sujata's case and Golla Rajanna's case
cited supra, it is clearly held that the determination of the
income of the claimant and determination of the disability
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58930
MFA No. 1238 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010095012023
are pure question of facts and not substantial questions of
law. Hence, by placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments
and for the aforesaid reasons, this Court held that no
substantial question of law would arise. Hence, this Court
passes the following:
ORDER
The Appeal is dismissed .
Digitally Signed By:
K B GEETHA
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
LL
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22