Karnataka High Court
Smt Papa vs M/S Bhadra Estate & Industries Ltd on 22 January, 2021
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
M.F.A.NO.3023 OF 2017 (WC)
BETWEEN
SMT PAPA
W/O SHANMUGA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O THIRTHAGIRI ESTATE,
BHADRA ESTATE AND INDUSTRIES LTD.,
DURGADABETTA POST, KOPPA TALUK-577125
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. VENKATE GOWDA , ADVOCATE)
AND
1. M/S BHADRA ESTATE & INDUSTRIES LTD
DURGADABETTA POST,
KOPPA TALUK-PINCODE-577 126
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
2. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,BRANCH OFFICE,
CHIKMAGALUR-577 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-1
SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) (a) OF
COMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND AWARD DATED: 17.02.2017 PASSED IN ECA NO. 13/2014 ON
THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIOANL SENIOR CIVIL JDUGE & JMFC
CHIKKAMAGALURU & ITINERATE AT KOPPA, DISMISSING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant in ECA No.13/2014 dated
17.02.2017 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC at Chikkamagaluru and Itinerate at Koppa is directed
against the impugned judgment and award, whereby the claim
petition filed by the claimant seeking compensation towards
death of her husband-Shanmuga on 24.12.2010 was
dismissed by the trial Court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material
on record.
3. Before the trial Court, it was the specific
contention of the appellant that her husband-Shanmuga was
employed as coolie in the estate of respondent No.1. On
24.12.2010, during and his course of his employment with
respondent No.1, who asked the deceased to dig mug in the
well, the deceased-Shanmuga suffered a heart attack
resulting in his death. It was contended that the deceased was
aged about 46 years and getting a monthly salary of
Rs.6,000/- along with other benefits from respondent No.1
who had also obtained an Insurance policy from respondent
No.2-Insurance Company.
4. Respondent No.1-Employer filed his statement of
objections admitting the relationship of employer and
employee between himself and the deceased-Shanmuga. It
was also admitted that the deceased suffered the heart attack
during and in the course of his employment with respondent
No.1. It was however contended that the monthly salary of the
deceased was Rs.2,476.44/- and that all employees of the
respondent No.1 had been insured with respondent No.2. It
was contended that on 20.06.2013, the respondent No.1 had
deposited the compensation amount of Rs.2,38,848/- before
the Tribunal which included interest upto that day. It was
therefore contended that the question of continuing the
proceedings against the respondent No.2 did not arise and
that the same were liable to be dropped.
5. The respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its
statement of objections denying not only the relationship of
employer and employee between the respondent No.1 and the
deceased but also the allegation that the deceased died of a
heart attack during and in the course of employment. It was
therefore contended that the Insurance Company was not
liable to pay any compensation and that the claim petition was
liable to be dismissed.
6. Pursuant to the above pleading, the trial Court
framed five issues including the issue No.2 regarding whether
the deceased died during and in course of employment with
respondent No.1. The said issue was answered in the
negative by the trial Court and consequently, the claim petition
was dismissed by the impugned order, aggrieved by which the
appellant is before this Court by way of the present appeal.
7. Upon re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the
entire material on record, I am of the considered opinion that
the trial Court committed a grave and serious error of law and
jurisdiction in failing to consider and appreciate the
unimpeached and uncontroverted material on record which
clearly established that the deceased suffered a heart attack
during and in the course of his employment with respondent
No.1. Under these circumstances, the impugned judgment
and award passed by the trial Court deserves to be set aside
and the claim petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is
concerned, the claimant would be entitled to a sum of
Rs.2,05,867/- as hereunder:
Rs.2476 x 50/100 x 166.29 (relevant factor) = Rs.2,05,867/-
Since the respondent No.1 has deposited a sum of
Rs.2,38,848/- on 20.06.2013 including interest at 12% p.a. till
that day, claimant would be entitled to the aforesaid sum of
Rs.2,38,848/- by way of compensation.
9. It has to be stated that in view of the undisputed
fact that the deceased was insured with respondent No.2, the
said amount of Rs.2,05,867/- which is part and parcel of the
amount deposited by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, is
to be refunded to respondent No.1 by respondent No.2, since
it is respondent No.2, who is liable to pay the said
compensation.
10. Insofar the interest payable on the said amount of
Rs.2,05,867/- is concerned, the respondent No.1 has
deposited a total sum of Rs.2,38,848/- before the Tribunal on
20.06.2013. The break up of the said amount is as under:
Compensation - Rs.2,05,867/-
Interest @ 12% p.a. - Rs.32,981/-
11. As stated supra, the compensation amount is to
be directed to be refunded/reimbursed to the respondent No.1
by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company while respondent
No.1 would be liable to pay the aforesaid interest in a sum of
Rs.32,981/- in favour of the claimant.
12. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is partly allowed.
ii) Impugned judgment and award dated ECA
No.13/2014 dated 17.02.2017 on the file of
II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC
at Chikkamagaluru and Itinerate at Koppa
is hereby set aside.
iii) The appellant-claimant is entitled to
compensation in a sum of Rs.2,38,848/-
already deposited before the Tribunal by
respondent No.1.
iv) Out of the total sum of Rs.2,38,848/-,
respondent No.2-Insurance Company shall
refund/reimburse Rs.2,05,867/- in favour of
respondent No.1-Employer within a period
of six weeks from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
v) Registry is directed to send back the TCR
forthwith to enable the claimant to withdraw
the compensation deposited before the trial
Court.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Mds.
