IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101380 OF 2023 (ECA)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. SHAMIVULA S/O. MOHAMMAD HANIF UPPUNUSI, AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. DRIVER, NOW NIL, R/O. AKKI-ALUR, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581102.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARISH S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SHRI. ILIYAS AHMED S/O. MAQBOOL AHAMED MULLA, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. AKKI-ALUR, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581102.

2. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, THE CHOLA M.S. GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., Digitally signed

1^ST FLOOR, KALBURGI SQUARE, DESAI CROSS, by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR DESHPANDE NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580029.

Location: HIGH …RESPONDENTS COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. NAGARAJ C.KOLLOORI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;

NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION

30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO, ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 31.12.2022, PASSED IN E.C.A. NO.4/2021, ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION AND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HANGAL, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the award passed in ECA No.4/2021 dated

31.12.2022 by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal (for short “the Trial Court”) whereby the Trial Court had granted compensation of an amount of Rs.16,05,116/-, the claimant is before this Court seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Trial Court has held that the petitioner has a permanent disability of 75% in respect of his right lower limb and that 30% in respect of the left lower limb. Further, the total permanent physical disability is taken as 80%. It is submitted that he was working as a driver and his leg is amputated above the knee. It is submitted that the appellant/claimant is 100% functionally disabled and he is not in a position to drive. As such, the Trial Court ought to have taken the disability as 100%. In this regard, he has relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in K.Janardhan v. United India Insurance Company Ltd., and another, 2008 (8) SCC 518 and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Suresh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., and another, 2010 (13) SCC 777

3. In K.Janardhan’s case, the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.5 and 6 observed as under:

“5. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one argument during the course of the hearing. He has submitted that the appellant claimant being a tanker driver, the loss of his right leg ipso facto meant a total disablement as understood in terms of Section 2(1)(l) of the Workmen's Compensation Act and as such the appellant was entitled to have his compensation computed on that basis. In support of this plea, the learned counsel has placed reliance on Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas¹. The cited case pertained to a carpenter who had suffered an amputation of his left arm from the elbow and this Court held that this amounted to a total disability as the injury was of such a nature that the claimant had been disabled from all work which he was capable of performing at

the time of the accident. It was observed as under: (SCC p. 291, para 5)

“5. The expression “total disablement” has been defined in Section 2(1)(l) of the Act as follows:

‘2. (1)(l) “total disablement” means such disablement, whether of a temporary or permanent nature, as incapacitates a workman for all work which he was capable of performing at the time of the accident resulting in such disablement;’

It has not been disputed before us that the injury was of such a nature as to cause permanen