Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Shri.Deepak Ratnappa Shinde on 14 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.103303 OF 2015 (WC)
C/W
MFA NO.103302 OF 2015 (WC)
IN MFA NO.103303/2015
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
REP. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX II FLOOR,
STATION ROAD, HUBLI,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI ANAND S/O HANAMANT WADDAR
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC:HAMALI (NOW NIL),
R/O M.K. HUBBLI, GAUTAN GHANDHINAGAR,
2ND ONI, TQ:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. VALLI AHMAD GOUSSAB PATEL
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
TQ:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI,
2
(OWNER OF TRUCK MEH-6192)
...RESPONDENTS
(SERVED)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH ORDER DATED 16.09.2015 MADE IN
ECA 577/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, BELAGAVI, EXAMINE
THE SAME AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.9.2015 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO.103302/2015
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BRANCH B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CLUB ROAD, BELAGAVI,
REP. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE,
SUMANGALA COMPLEX II FLOOR,
STATION ROAD, HUBLI,
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.S.S.KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI DEEPAK RATNAPPA SHINDE
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
OCC: CLEANER (NOW NIL),
R/O M.K. HUBBLI, NEAR CINEMA TALKIES,
TQ:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI. VALLI AHMAD GOUSSAB PATEL
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:TRANSPORT BUSINESS,
TQ:BAILHONGAL, DIST:BELAGAVI,
(OWNER OF TRUCK MEH-6192)
...RESPONDENTS
(SERVED)
3
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES'
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO CALL FOR
THE RECORDS CONNECTED WITH ORDER DATED 16.09.2015 MADE IN
ECA 326/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, BELAGAVI, EXAMINE
THE SAME AND SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.9.2015 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeals are directed against the common
judgment and award passed in ECA Nos.326 and 577 of
2014 dated 16.9.2015 by the learned II Addl. Senior Civil
Judge and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation,
Belagavi (for short, 'Commissioner').
2. Brief facts are that, the claimants Deepak and
Anand were working as a cleaner and Hamali respectively
in a Truck bearing registration No. MEH 6192 belonging to
one Valli Ahmad (Respondent No.1 before the
Commissioner) and insured with present appellant. It is
stated that on 8.6.2010 at about 3 p.m., when both
claimants were proceeding in the said truck in their
capacity as a Cleaner and Hamali, near Mandoli-Belagavi
road, on account of the driver of the truck driving it in
4
high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, it met
with an accident resulting in injuries to the claimants.
3. The claim petition was contested by the appellant
before the learned Commissioner.
4. Before the learned Commissioner, the claimants
examined themselves as PW1 and PW2 and Exs.P1 to P13
were marked. The appellant got marked copy of the
insurance policy as Ex.R1.
5. Upon consideration of the entire materials placed
before him, the learned Commissioner came to a
conclusion that both the claimants were entitled to
Rs.58,565.70 each and thereafter, as provided under
Section 4(1)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
(for short, 'Act'), awarded Rs.1,40,000/- each with
interest thereon at 12% per annum.
6. Sri. S.S.Koliwad, learned counsel for the
appellant-Insurance Company vehemently contended that
the claimant-Deepak had suffered fracture of medial
5
epicondyle of right humerus as per Ex.P6-Wound
Certificate and the claimant-Anand had suffered
dislocation of right shoulder joint as per Ex.P10-Wound
Certificate and as such the injuries are non-schedule
injuries and in that view of the matter, the learned
Commissioner has erred in awarding compensation by
applying the provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act and
the learned Commissioner ought to have restricted the
award to Rs.58,565.70.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant-
Insurer.
8. Ex.P6-Wound Certificate clearly shows that
Cleaner-Deepak had suffered fracture of medial epicondyle
of right humerus, which would have affected his ability to
work as a cleaner or any other manual work and in fact,
the disability certificate (Ex.P8) which was produced
before the learned Commissioner also shows that he had
suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25% to the
6
right upper limb. Similarly, as already noticed at Ex.P10-
Wound Certificate, the claimant-Anand, who was working
as Hamali had suffered dislocation of shoulder and
Ex.P12-disability Certificate shows that the Medical Expert
had opined that he had suffered permanent disability to
the extent of 18% to the right upper limb. What is
relevant to notice is that both these claimants were
working as manual labourers and a fit pair of hands is
extremely necessary for carrying out their work
efficiently. Under such circumstances, I do not find any
warrant for interfering with the order passed by the
learned Commissioner awarding compensation of
Rs.1,40,000/- each by applying the provisions under
Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. The fact that this Act is a
social welfare legislation cannot be overlooked. Therefore,
I am of the view that no substantial question of law arises
for consideration in these appeals. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) Both the appeals are dismissed.
b) The amount in deposit before this Court
is ordered to be transmitted to the
learned Commissioner forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
