Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Hanamanthappa Hulugappa on 15 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.22695 OF 2013 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE: RAGHAVACHARI ROAD,
BELLARY-583101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SHRI. HANAMANTHAPPA HULUGAPPA
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:CLEANER,
R/O KAUL BAZAR, BELLARY.
2. SHRI. RAMCHANDRAREDDY S/O S.L. REDDY
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS, OWNER OF
LORRY NO.CTS 8519, R./O VENUGOPAL NAIDU
STREET, KOWL BAZAR, BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WC
NO.339/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, DIVISION-2, BELLARY AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 24.05.2013 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COST
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND/OR FURTHER RELIEFS, AS THIS HON'BLE
COURT DEEMFS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
2
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The insurer has preferred this appeal under Section
30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923
(for short, 'Act') calling in question the legality and award
dated 24.5.2013 passed in WC.SR No.339/2012 by the
learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Sub-division-2, Bellary (for short,
'Commissioner').
2. Brief facts are that the claimant-Hanamanthappa
was working as a Cleaner in a Truck bearing No.CTS-8519
belonging to respondent No.1 before the learned
Commissioner, which was insured with the present
appellant. It is further stated that on 3.5.2012 at about
5.30 p.m., when the claimant-Hanamanthappa was
proceeding in the said Truck for loading maize, on account
of rash and negligent driving of the Truck by its driver, it
fell into ditch, and due to the same, the claimant suffered
grievous injuries.
3. During the enquiry, respondent No.1-
Ramachandra Reddy, owner of the truck filed his
statement of objections admitting the fact that the
claimant was working as a cleaner in his lorry and he was
receiving a monthly wages of Rs.4,000/-. Before the
learned Commissioner, the claimant examined himself as
PW2 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. He also examined
one doctor Dinesh Gudi as PW3. The respondents got
marked policy of the insurance as Ex.R1.
4. Upon consideration of the entire materials
produced before him, the learned Commissioner recorded
a finding that there was employer and employee
relationship between respondent No.1(owner of the lorry)
and the claimant and that the accident resulting in
injuries took place in the course of and arising out of the
employment. He further recorded a finding that the
claimant was receiving a monthly wages of Rs.4,000/- and
he was aged about 29 years at the time of the accident.
Further, based on the evidence of the medical expert, he
recorded a finding that the claimant had suffered loss of
earning capacity to the extent of 35%. On the said basis,
by applying relevant factor, he awarded a compensation of
Rs.1,76,332/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum
from 30 days from the date of the accident till date of
realization.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
Company has raised twofold contentions. Firstly, he
contended that a monthly wages of Rs.4,000/- taken by
the learned Commissioner for computing the compensation
is on the higher side and same is not based on evidence.
He further contended that the learned Commissioner has
erred in law in fixing the loss of earning capacity at 35%
and therefore, it is liable to be interfered with.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant.
7. The finding of the learned Commissioner that
there was employer and employee relationship between
the parties and further that the accident resulting in
injuries to the claimant had taken place in the course of
and arising out of the employment is fully based on
evidence and that being finding of fact is not liable to be
interfered with.
8. Insofar as wages of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per
month is concerned, the same is supported by the stand
of the employer-Ramachandra Reddy in his statement of
objections. Even prior to 2010 Amendment to the Act,
maximum wages fixed was Rs.4,000/- and after
amendment in 2010, maximum wages was fixed at
Rs.8,000/- per month. The accident in question has taken
place on 3.5.2012. Therefore, in view of the evidence as
well as the amendment brought into the Act, it cannot be
said by any stretch of imagination that the monthly wages
at Rs.4,000/- fixed by the learned Commissioner is
erroneous or perverse. Therefore, I do not find any merit
in the said contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant. Accordingly, it is rejected.
9. In regard to assessment of loss of earning
capacity made by the learned Commissioner at 35%,
criticism leveled by the learned counsel for the appellant
is that it is on the higher side and it is not based on legal
evidence. The statute itself has recognized the fact that
when a medically qualified person has assessed the same,
the learned Commissioner has to rely on the said
assessment made by the qualified Medical Practitioner.
Dr. Dinesh Gudi, who had made assessment of the
disability was examined before the learned Commissioner
and he had assessed loss of earning capacity at 35%. As
per the medical records and the evidence of the doctor,
the claimant had suffered following injuries:
Painful swelling of left wrist, painful
deformity of left writ, unable to hold or lift heavy
weight, difficulty to move wrist and forearm, pain
increases on doing minor repair works.
On examination, left wrist doformed,
forearm muscles wasted, tenderness over
fracture site and wrist, movements of wrist and
forearm are painful and restricted, left grip is
weak. X-ray right thigh with knee AP and 1 s t
shows old malunited fracture of lower of end of
radius
10. Taking into consideration the above medical
evidence, there is no basis for holding that the learned
Commissioner has erred in law in assessing the loss of
earning capacity of the claimant at 35%. The said finding
of the learned Commissioner is fully supported by the
medical evidence. In that view of the matter, I do not
find any merit in the submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant and accordingly, I reject the
same. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and
same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeal is dismissed.
b) The amount in deposit before this Court
shall be transmitted to the learned
Commissioner forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
