Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Muddurangayya on 2 July, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.23418/2009 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
A. M. ARCADE, C. J. HOSPITAL ROAD,
NEAR VIDHYARTHI BHAVAN, DAVANAGERE,
NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2-B UNITY BUILDING, ANNEXES
MISSION ROAD, BANGALORE -27
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. M. K. SOUDAGAR, ADV.,)
AND
1. MUDDURANGAYYA S/O. BETTADADASAPPA
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. BELADAMADAGU, POST: DABBEKATTE,
TQ: MADHUGIRI, DIST: TUMKUR.
2. PRASAD S. T.
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. NO.11, KIRAN, C. R. LAYOUT,
1ST CROSS, J. P. NAGAR, BANGALORE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADV., FOR R1;
R2- NOTICE SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30 OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
2
AND AWARD DATED 25.08.2009 IN WCA/NF NO.67/2008 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI BY
ALLOWING THIS APPEAL.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an insurer's appeal calling in question the validity of
the award dated 25.08.2009 in WCA/NF No.67/2008 passed by
the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Haveri District, Haveri (for short "the
Commissioner").
2. Brief facts are that the claimant Muddu Rangayya
was working as driver in lorry bearing registration No.KA-05/D-
3988 owned by respondent No.1-Prasad S T and insured with the
appellant herein. On 30.03.2008, while the claimant was driving
the said lorry on P.B. road, near MICO Factory, Ranebennur, he
lost control over the lorry and it fell into a ditch resulting in
grievous injuries to the claimant.
3. In the claim proceedings, respondent No.1-the owner
of the vehicle in question entered appearance and filed his
written statement admitting employer-employee relationship
between him and the claimant and also that the accident
resulting in injuries to the claimant took place in the course of
and arising out of the employment. The appellant filed its
separate written statement denying the material averments
made in the claim petition.
4. During the enquiry, claimant examined himself as
PW1 and examined a qualified medical practitioner as PW2 and
Ex.P1 to Ex.P10 were marked. The appellant examined one of its
officials as RW1 and policy of insurance was marked as Ex.R2(1).
5. Upon consideration of the materials produced and
the evidence let in, learned Commissioner answered the points
for consideration arising in the case in favour of the claimant and
against the appellant herein and awarded a sum of
Rs.2,03,328/- as compensation with interest thereon at 12% per
annum.
6. It is urged on behalf of the appellant-insurance
company that the finding of the learned Commissioner on the
employer-employee relationship is based on no evidence and
therefore, it is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the
claimant was not holding valid and effective driving licence to
drive the vehicle in question and the appellant is not liable to
reimburse the compensation amount. It is further contended
that the loss in the earning capacity of the claimant fixed at 50%
is unjustified and the award of Rs.2,03,328/- made by the
learned Commissioner is excessive.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the above
submissions and I have perused the records.
8. Claimant has specifically pleaded that he was
working as driver in lorry bearing registration No.KA-05/D-3988
owned by respondent No.1-Prasad ST and insured with the
appellant. Respondent No.1-the owner of the vehicle in question,
in his written statement, has admitted the above fact very
clearly. The complaint-Ex.P1 also shows that at the time of the
accident, claimant was working as driver of the lorry in question.
The charge-sheet also shows the claimant as accused. Claimant
has also in his evidence stated that he was working as driver
under respondent No.1 in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-
05/D-3988 and the accident resulting in the injuries had taken
place in the course of and arising out of the employment. In that
view of the matter, the finding of fact recorded by the learned
Commissioner on these aspects are fully supported by the
evidence placed before him and therefore, they are not liable to
be interfered with.
9. It is contended that the loss in the earning capacity
assessed by the learned Commissioner at 50% is exorbitant,
especially since he had suffered 55% of permanent disability in
respect of his right lower limb. The wound certificate, Ex.P2,
issued by Senior Specialist, General Hospital, Ranebennur shows
that there was fracture of shaft of femur at middle 1/3rd of right
thigh. The X-rays were also taken in the said hospital. PW2, the
qualified medical practitioner, had examined the claimant and
noticed various restriction in the movement of his right lower
limb on account of fracture suffered by him. He had made his
assessment that the claimant had suffered 55% total permanent
physical disability and loss of physical function with respect to
the right lower limb. Learned Commissioner upon consideration
of the relevant factors like the claimant being a driver of heavy
goods vehicle, the fracture site being middle 1/3rd of the right
thigh, the extent of disability suffered by him on account of the
restricted movement in the said limb and the overall effect of the
same on his working efficiency as a driver of the heavy goods
vehicle, has fixed the loss in the earning capacity at 50%. I do
not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the assessment
regarding loss of earning capacity made by the learned
Commissioner and therefore, it is not required to be interfered
with in an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923.
10. In regard to the contention put forth on behalf of the
appellant that claimant was not having valid and effective driving
licence is concerned, Ex.P10-the original driving licence has been
produced, which is part of Trial Court records. Learned
Commissioner on consideration of the same, has come to the
conclusion that the claimant was having valid and effective
driving licence to drive the lorry in question. In that view of the
matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is liable to be
dismissed. However, the learned Commissioner has committed
an error in awarding interest on the compensation amount only
w.e.f. 30 days from the date of the award. The same is liable to
be rectified by awarding interest w.e.f. 30 days from the date of
the accident. Hence, the following:
ORDER
The above appeal is dismissed.
However, the appellant is liable to pay interest
on the award amount w.e.f. 30 days from the date of
the accident till the date of realisation.
The amount in deposit, if any, before the
registry, shall be transmitted to the jurisdictional
Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge along with the
records, forthwith.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
yan
