IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(ARISING FROM SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 12315 OF 2024)

MAHADEVI ...APPELLANT(S)

Versus
THE [Link], NEKRTC
(KSRTC), RAICHUR DEPOT. ...RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance on

behalf of the respondent.
3. The present appeal arises against order dated 14.07.2023
passed by the High Court of Karnataka in MFA
No.200797/2020 (ECA). The High Court has allowed the
respondent’s appeal and decreased the compensation
awarded to the appellant from Rs.13,22,130/- to an amount
of Rs.5,13,800/- under the Employees Compensation Act,
1923.
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
NEETU KHAJURIA
Date: 2025.02.11
[Link] IST
Reason:

CA NO……/2025 @ SLP(C) NO.12315/2024 . 1

4. The facts of the matter are that the appellant’s deceased
husband was working as a driver with the respondent;
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) as a
permanent employee. On 30.12.2011, the deceased along
with conductor were on duty on a bus as per the direction of
Lingasur Depot Manager. The accident occurred while the
deceased was driving the bus. He suffered a Cerebrovascular
attack resulting into the accident. He suffered simple
injuries all over his body, making him unconscious and
therefore lost control over the said bus and dashed into a
tempo coming from the opposite side. The deceased was
taken to the hospital where he died on 03.01.2012.
5. Thereafter in the year 2017, the appellant filed a claim
petition being E.C.A. No.19/2017 seeking compensation
under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act. The
Additional Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees
Compensation vide order dated 18.03.2020 partly allowed
the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.13,22,129/-
(Thirteen Lakh Twenty Two Thousand One Hundred and
Twenty Nine only) with 12% interest per annum from
30.01.2012 till the date of payment to the appellant. The
respondent challenged the above award in appeal before the
High Court being M.F.A. No.200797/2020 (ECA). The High
Court partly allowed the respondent’s appeal and reduced

CA NO……/2025 @ SLP(C) NO.12315/2024 . 2

 the compensation awarded to a sum of Rs.5,23,800/- (Five
Lakh Twenty Three Thousand and Eight Hundred only) with
12% interest from 03.01.2012 till the date of payment.
Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the party.
7. The Commissioner held that the death in question was
during and in the course of employment and that the
deceased was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.20,803/-. As
per Section 4(1)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, fifty
per cent was deducted and a sum of Rs.12,97,129/- was
awarded with an additional sum of Rs.25,000/- towards
funeral expenses.
8. In appeal, the respondent contended before the High Court
that they had paid all the death benefits of the deceased and
therefore, the appellant was not entitled to claim any further
compensation. Further, it was pointed out that the claim
petition was filed belatedly and therefore awarding the rate
of 12% interest per annum from the date of the death is
incorrect. A further contention was that the monthly wage of
the deceased was wrongly considered in view of the cap
contained in Section 4(1B) of the Employees Compensation
Act.
9. The High Court observed that there is no dispute over the
deceased being an employee and the fact that he died during

CA NO……/2025 @ SLP(C) NO.12315/2024 . 3

 and in the course of his employment. This makes the
employers bound to pay the compensation prescribed under
the Employees Compensation Act immediately after the
event causing death. The High Court rightly held that this
liability of paying interest from the date of the death cannot
be avoided by the employer as the death benefits were earned
by the deceased. However, noting that the Commissioner
had considered the wages of the deceased to be Rs.20,803/-
, the High Court decided to modify the award as it held that
the Central Government had issued a notification under
Section 4(1B) of the Employees Compensation Act capping
the maximum wages for the purpose of determining
compensation at Rs.8,000/- per month. The High Court by
treating the income to be Rs.8,000/-, reduced the
compensation to Rs.4,98,800/- plus the additional sum of
Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses making it a total
amount of Rs.5,23,800/-.
10. We have examined the order dated 18.03.2020 passed by the
Commissioner. The order details the written statement filed
before it by the respondent. The respondent contested the
claim petition relying on the delay in filing, non-joinder of
necessary parties and stating that the compensation claimed
is disproportionate and the respondent is not liable to pay it.
The plea regarding the cap of Rs.8,000/- under Section 4(1B)

CA NO……/2025 @ SLP(C) NO.12315/2024 . 4

 of the Employees Compensation Act was not raised by the
respondent before the Commissioner and only brought up
before the High Court. As such, the High Court should not
have entertained such a submission. The High Court was
testing the Commissioner’s order and since this plea was not
taken up before, the Commissioner did not frame an issue
regarding this or go into this question at all.
11. While examining the impugned order of the High Court, we
are not inclined to uphold the reduction of compensation
based a fresh plea relating to Section 4(1B) stating that the
Central Government by notification has specified that
monthly wage of an employee shall be capped at Rs.8000/-.
The High Court while relying on this said notification, has
neither reproduced it in the order nor given any relevant
details about the notification such as the date. Therefore,
details such as whether it came before or after the present
incident and its application cannot be properly ascertained.
Therefore, we are of the view that the submission regarding
Section 4(1B) held no merit and the High Court should not
have treated the deceased’s monthly income to be
Rs.8,000/- when it was admittedly and correctly held to be
Rs Rs.20,803/- by the Commissioner.
12. We find that Section 4(1)(a) of the Employees Compensation
Act is clear in stating that where death results from an

CA NO……/2025 @ SLP(C) NO.12315/2024 . 5

 injury, an amount to fifty percent of the monthly wages of
the deceased is considered. This has been correctly followed
and applied by the Commissioner. We further note that
despite service of notice, the Respondent has been absent
before this Court and has not contested this matter.
13. Considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the view
that the Commissioner was correct in awarding the initial
compensation of Rs. Rs.13,22,129/- and the High Court
erred in reducing this compensation.
14. In light of the above facts and observations, the appeal is
allowed. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside
and the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and
Commissioner for Employees Compensation is restored.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………………. .J.
[VIKRAM NATH]

……………………………. .J.
[ SANDEEP MEHTA]

NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 03, 2025.

CA NO……/2025 @ SLP(C) NO.12315/2024 . 6