Sri Keerthi vs Rasheed Anwar Khazi
2021 Latest Caselaw 2142 Kant

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 2142 Kant
Judgement Date : 7 June, 2021

Karnataka High Court

Sri Keerthi vs Rasheed Anwar Khazi on 7 June, 2021

Author: H.P.Sandesh

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

            DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

                 M.F.A.NO.10413/2013 (WC)
BETWEEN:

SRI KEERTHI
S/O KEMPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
R/O K.M. DODDI, MADDUR TQ,
MANDYA-571 401.
                                              ... APPELLANT
                 (BY SRI L.RAJA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     RASHEED ANWAR KHAZI
       S/O S.R.KHAZI,
       AGE: MAJOR,
       R/O NO.293, 32ND CROSS,
       ANWAR COLONY, OLD TOWN,
       BHADRAVATHI, 577 301.
       (OWNER OF LORRY No.KA-27/2894)

2.     THE BRANCH MANAGER
       THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       2ND CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR,
       MANDYA-571 401.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

             (BY SRI P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
               R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WC ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.08.2013 PASSED IN
WCA/CR-45/2009 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER     FOR    WORKMEN   COMPENSATION,    SUB
                                    2



DIVISION-1, MANDYA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION     AND    SEEKING  ENHANCEMENT     OF
COMPENSATION.

     THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH
'VIDEO CONFERENCE' THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for admission today, with the

consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, the

same is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/claimant and learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent-Insurance Company.

3. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant

challenging the Judgment and Award dated 01.08.2013 passed

in No.WCA.CR-45 of 2009 on the file of the Commissioner for

Employee's Compensation, Mandya Sub-Division-I, Mandya ('the

Commissioner' for short), contending that the Tribunal has

committed an error in awarding meager compensation in taking

the income of the claimant as Rs.3,500/- per month though, the

evidence on record goes to show that the appellant was getting

the salary of Rs.5,000/- per month and batta of Rs.30/- per day.

The Commissioner also committed an error in considering the

disability of 30%, though the evidence on record goes to show

that the Doctor had assessed the permanent disability at 40%.

It is also contended that the Commissioner has committed an

error in awarding interest only 10% instead of 12%. The

appellant had raised the following substantial questions of law

before this Court that:

(1) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is

right in law justifying in awarding the interest at 10%?

(2) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is

right in law justifying in considering only 30% permanent

disability, though the doctor assessed the disability at

40%?

(3) Whether the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is

right in law justifying in considering the income of the

appellant is only Rs.3,500/-, though the evidence on

record goes to shows that the appellant was getting

income of Rs.5,000/- and batta of Rs.30/- per day?

4. The learned counsel for the appellant would

vehemently contend that the Commissioner has committed an

error in not awarding the just and reasonable compensation and

it requires an interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second

respondent-Insurance Company would vehemently contend that

the Commissioner has taken the higher disability and the same

has been questioned before this Court. This Court dismissed the

appeal filed by the Insurance Company in MFA No.1832/2014

and the disability taken by the Commissioner is on higher side.

6. Having heard the arguments of the respective

counsel and on perusal of the grounds urged in the appeal and

the materials available on record, when the Insurance Company

appeal was also dismissed by this Court and also taking into note

of the nature of the injuries suffered by the claimant i.e.,

fracture of 2nd and 3rd metacarpal bones of right wrist and 2nd

and 3rd metatarsal bones of right leg, I do not find any error

committed by the Commissioner in taking 30% of disability.

However, the Commissioner has committed an error in taking

the income of Rs.3,500/- instead of Rs.4,000/- and this is the

accident of the year 2008 and also committed an error in

awarding interest at the rate of 10% instead of 12%. Hence, it

requires modification. Answering substantial questions of law

with regard to the interest as well as taking the income, if it is

taken the income of Rs.4,000/- per month in a case of injury and

disability, 60% of the income of the claimant has to be

considered, then, it comes to Rs.1,57,298.40 paise (60% of

Rs.4,000/- = 2400x218.47x30/100), the same is rounded off to

Rs.1,57,300/- with 12% interest per annum from one month

after the accident.

7. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

(ii) The Judgment and Award dated 01.08.2013 passed in No.WCA.CR-45 of 2009 on the file of the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation, Mandya Sub-Division-I, Mandya is modified granting compensation of Rs.1,57,300/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from one month after the accident.