Kavitha Devi vs Mr S H Venugopal
2021 Latest Caselaw 5691 Kant

                           1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

                       BEFORE

   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

              MFA No.7273 OF 2017(WC)
BETWEEN:

1 . KAVITHA DEVI
    W/O LATE JAYAPRAKASH
    AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.

2 . KAJAL
    D/O LATE JAYAPRAKASH
    AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS.

3 . SURAJ KUMAR
    S/O LATE JAYAPRAKASH
    AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.

4 . ROSON KUMAR
    S/O LATE JAYAPRAKASH
    AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS.

    APPELLANT Nos. 3 & 4 ARE
    MINORS REPT BY MOTHER
    KAVITHA DEVI.
    ALL ARE RESIDING AT
    CRYSTAL DUE APARTMENT, HENNURBANDE
    BANGALORE 560043.

                                        ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.D S MALIPATIL, ADV.)
                          2



AND

1.    MR S H VENUGOPAL
      PROP OF M/S BALAJI CONSTRUCTIONS
      NO.1552, 27TH MAIN
      26TH CROSS
      II SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
      BENGALURU 560102.

2.    M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
      NO.460/20, 1ST FLOOR
      8TH B MAIN ROAD
      4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
      BANGALORE 560011
      REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER
      JAYANAGAR BRANCH.

                                    ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.S,KRISHANA KISHORE, ADV. FOR R2:
    R1 SERVED)

     THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED:25.04.2017 PASSED IN ECA NO.6/2016 ON
THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL
CAUSES, & XXXV ACMM, EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION,
COMMISSIONER, AT BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

     THIS MFA, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THIS COURT, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                    JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimants under

Section 30(1) of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.04.2017 passed

by the Court of Small Causes and XXXV ACMM and

Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bengaluru

(SCCH-16) in ECA No.06/2016.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 01.12.2013 the deceased

was working as a labourer under the first respondent

and when he was working in the second floor of the

building, he was putting iron rods for the purpose of

doing plasting work. Unfortunately, while doing so, he

fell down and sustained fractures all over the body

and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants filed petition before the

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking

compensation for the death of the deceased along

with interest.

4. On service of summons, the respondents

appeared through counsel and filed written statement

in which the averments made in the petition were

denied.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

framed the issues and thereafter recorded the

evidence and by impugned judgment, inter alia, held

that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of

Rs.6,17,800/- along with interest at the rate of 12%

p.a. for the death of deceased and directed the

Insurance Company to deposit the compensation

amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this

appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel for the claimants has

contended that in view of amendment of Section

4(1)(a) of the Act, the monthly income of the

deceased has been fixed as Rs.8,000/-. The

Commissioner has failed to consider the same. Hence,

he sought for enhancement of compensation.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing

for the Insurance Company has contended that

considering the age and avocation of the deceased,

the Commissioner has granted just and reasonable

compensation. Hence, he sought for allowing the

appeal.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and perused the judgment and award.

9. This appeal is admitted to consider the

following substantial question of law:

"Whether the appellants have made out any case for enhancement of compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case?".

10. It is not in dispute that the deceased was

working as a labourer under the first respondent as

his employee.

It is also not in dispute that Jayaprakash died on

01.12.2013 during the course of employment. In view

of the amendment of Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, the

maximum income has been fixed as Rs.8,000/- per

month in case of death. The monthly wages assessed

by the Commissioner is on lower side. Therefore, the

monthly income of the deceased has to be considered

as Rs.8,000/- per month. At the time of the accident,

the age of the deceased was 35 years, the factor

applicable to the age is '197.06'. Accordingly, loss of

dependency is reassessed as follows:

(50% of Rs.8,000) Rs.4,000X 197.06 = 7,88,240/-

The compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded

towards 'funeral expenses' is just and reasonable.

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

The appeal is allowed in-part. The judgment of

the Commissioner is modified.

The claimants are entitled to a total

compensation of Rs.8,13,240/- as against

Rs.6,17,800/- awarded by the Commissioner along

with interest at 12% per annum from one month from

the date of the accident till the date of realization.

Sd/-

JUDGE

HA/-