Karnataka High Court
M.Basavaraju vs Shanthamma on 22 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO.23099 OF 2013 (WC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M. BASAVARAJU S/O LATE GURUBASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE,
R/O BANAVIKALLU, TALUK:KODALAGI,
DIST:BELLARY.
2. SMT. VIJAYAMMA S/O M. BASAVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEWIFE,
R/O BANAVIKALLU, TALUK:KODALAGI,
DIST:BELLARY.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI.Y. LAKSHMIKANT REDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O T.M. JAYANNA
LORRY NO. KA-05/AA-4879
OWNER OF SVT TRANSPORT, MANDIPETE,
TUMKUR DISTRICT.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
BELLARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. KOLIWAD, ADV. FOR R2) (R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSAION ACT, PRAYING TO MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 4.10.2012 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1,
BELGAUM IN WC NO.195/2012 AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR
2
ORDERS AS IN THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimants, who are the parents of deceased
Virupakshi have come up in this appeal filed under Section
30(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for
short, 'Act') seeking enhancement of compensation
awarded on 4.10.2012 in WCA/CR No.195/2012 by the
learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Sub-divions-2, Bellary (for short,
'Commissioner').
2. Brief facts are that the deceased Virupakshi was
working as a Cleaner in lorry bearing registration
No.KA-05/AA-4879 owned by respondent No.1-Smt.
Shantamma before the learned Commissioner and insured
with respondent No.2. It is stated that on 31.5.2010 at
about 8.15 p.m., while the lorry in question was
transporting paddy, it dashed against another lorry
bearing registration No.MH-04-DD/2993 parked by the
side of road and due to impact injuries, the deceased
Virupakshi died at the spot.
3. During enquiry, the claimants examined
themselves and produced Exs.P1 to P6. The respondents
got marked policy of insurance as Ex.R2(1).
4. Upon consideration of the materials produced
before him, the learned Commissioner answered the
points for consideration in favour of the claimants and
against the respondents and awarded a compensation of
Rs.4,50,440/- with interest thereon at 12% per annum.
5. Sri. Y. Lakshmikant Reddy, learned counsel
appearing for the claimants contended before me that the
learned Commissioner has committed an error in taking a
monthly income of the deceased at only Rs.4,000/-,
especially since w.e.f. 31.5.2010, maximum notional
income was enhanced to Rs.8,000/- and the death of the
deceased had taken place on 31.5.2010. He pointed out
that the learned Commissioner had taken the income of
the deceased at Rs.6,000/- and upon his understanding
that the maximum awardable monthly income was
Rs.4,000/- only, he had computed the compensation
based on the monthly wages at Rs.4,000/-. According to
the learned counsel, since basis of such supposition is
entirely erroneous, this Court should interfere with the
same and award compensation fixing the monthly wages
at Rs.6,000/-.
6. Learned counsel appearing for
respondent/Insurance Company, per contra, submitted
that the deceased was aged about 19 years at the time of
the accident and taking into consideration all the relevant
aspects, the learned Commissioner has fixed monthly
income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/-. Therefore, finding
of the learned Commissioner is correct and no substantial
question of law arises for consideration, and accordingly,
this appeal should be dismissed.
7. A notification issued by the Central Government is
produced before me, which shows that w.e.f. 31.5.2010,
notional maximum income of a workman for the purpose
of computing compensation under the Act has been fixed
at Rs.8,000/-. In this case, the learned Commissioner
after observing that no material has been produced to
enable him to fix monthly wages of the deceased, had
recorded a finding that monthly wages of the deceased
would have been Rs.6,000/- and thereafter, he had taken
monthly wages at Rs.4,000/- only, on his understanding
that maximum cap put on monthly income under the Act
was Rs.4,000/- for a workman. However, as earlier
noticed by me, notification issued by the Central
Government had changed the maximum notional income of
the workman from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.8,000/- as on
31.5.2010. Since the deceased was aged 19 years at the
time of his death, I am of the view that it is just and
proper to fix his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-, since his
death had taken place on 31.5.2010. Accordingly, the
compensation which the claimants are entitled to is liable
to be re-calculated as follows:
Rs.5,000 x 50/100 x 225.22 = Rs.5,63,050/-
8. Accordingly, the claimants are entitled to receive
total compensation of Rs.5,63,050/- as against
Rs.4,50,440/- awarded by the learned Commissioner. The
claimants are entitled to receive interest on the award
amount at 12% per annum w.e.f. 30 days from the date of
accident till date of realization. Accordingly, the award of
the learned Commissioner is modified to the said extent.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
a) The above appeal is allowed in part.
b) The award passed by the learned
Commissioner is modified to the extent
that the claimants are entitled for a total
compensation of Rs.5,63,050/- as
against Rs.4,50,440/-.
c) The claimants are entitled to receive
interest on the award amount at 12% per
annum from 30 days from the date of the
accident till date of realization.
d) In view of the order dated 27.6.2016
passed by this Court, the claimants are
not entitled to interest on the enhanced
compensation for the delayed period.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
