Babasaheb Ganu Chavan vs Raju Baburao Jadhav
2021 Latest Caselaw 2370 Kant

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                         DHARWAD BENCH

                 DATED THIS 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2021

                              BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                    MFA NO.22977 OF 2013 (WC)

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI. BABASAHEB GANU CHAVAN
       AGE:46 YEARS, OCC:NIL,

2.     SMT. CHAYA BABASAHEB CHAVAN
       AGE:41 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK

       BOTH ARE R/O TAHASILDAR PLOT,
       SHIVAJI NAGAR, NIPPANI, TQ:CHIKKODI,
       DIST:BELGAUM.
                                                    ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.HARISH S MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     SRI. RAJU BABURAO JADHAV
       AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
       R/O BADAMANJI PLOT,
       SHIVAJI NAGAR, NIPPANI,
       TQ:CHIKKODI, DIST:BELGAUM.

2.     THE MANAGER
       ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
       DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
       MADIWALE ARCADE, CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADV. FOR R2) (R1-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
                                  2


     THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM IN WCA SR NO.46/2012
DATED 30.1.2013 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                             JUDGMENT

This appeal is at the instance of the claimants filed

under Section 30(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act,

1923 (for short, 'Act') calling in question the award date d

30.1.2013 passed in WCA/SR No.46/2012 by the learned

Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation, Sub-division-1, Belgaum (for short,

'Commissioner').

2. Brief facts are that the deceased Dinesh Baburao

Chavan, who is the son of the claimants herein was

working as a Driver in Truck bearing registration No.KA-

22/A-8381 belonging to respondent No.1-Raju Baburao

Jadhav (before the learned Commissioner) and insured

with respondent No.2/Oriental Insurance Company

Limited. It is stated that as per the instructions of

respondent No.1/insured, on 21.07.2011, deceased was

driving the truck in question carrying the load of Coal

from Mangalore to Kagal and while on his way, near

Ramanguli village, a collision took place between the said

truck and another truck bearing registration No.MH-24/F-

8616 resulting in serious injuries to the deceased and

subsequently, while undergoing treatment, he died on

6.8.2011.

3. In the proceedings before the learned

Commissioner, respondent No.1/Insured remained

unrepresented and respondent No.2/Insurer contested the

proceedings by filing written statement.

4. During the enquiry, claimant No.2 examined

herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12.

Respondent No.2 did not examine any witness and policy

of insurance was marked as Ex.R2(1).

5. Upon consideration of the entire materials placed

before him, the learned Commissioner awarded a

compensation of Rs.6,64,110/- with interest thereon at

12% per annum

6. Sri. Harish S Maigur, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants/claimants advanced twofold

contentions. Firstly, he contended that the learned

Commissioner has committed a serious error in taking

monthly wages of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- only, even

though he was a driver of heavy goods vehicle, it should

have been taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. He further

contended that on account of learned Commissioner taking

lower monthly wages, he has awarded compensation which

is considerably less than what the claimants are entitled

to for the loss of a breadwinning member of the family.

Nextly, he contended that even though amendment has

been incorporated to the Employees' Compensation Act,

1923 by adding sub-section (2A) to Section 4 of the Act,

which entitles the claimants to reimbursement of medical

expenses, which the claimants had incurred for giving

treatment to the deceased, the learned Commissioner has

not awarded the said reimbursement even though Ex.P11-

medical prescriptions and Ex.P10-42 medical bills

evidencing the fact that the claimants had spent

Rs.56,378/- towards medical expenses had been

produced. He therefore submitted that the claimants are

entitled to reimbursement of the medical bills, which they

had incurred for treatment of the deceased. He further

submitted that the claimants are also entitled to

compensation towards funeral expenses. Therefore, he

prays that appeal is liable to be allowed by modifying the

compensation awarded by the learned Commissioner.

7. Sri. M.K. Soudagar, learned counsel for the

insurer, on the other hand, submitted that there is no

substantial question of law arising for consideration in this

appeal, inasmuch as the learned Commissioner has taken

monthly wages of Rs.6,000/- for the deceased driver

which is reasonable and therefore, no further

enhancement on that score is called for.

8. Insofar as amendment to the Act by insertion of

Sub-section (2A) to Section 4 is concerned, the learned

counsel Sri. M.K. Soudagar graciously admits that such

amendment has indeed been incorporated and under the

same, the claimants are entitled to reimbursement of

medical expenses as against proper bills produced before

the learned Commissioner.

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made on either side and I have perused the

case papers.

10. The deceased was aged about 22 years at the

time of his death and the employer and employee

relationship has been established before the learned

Commissioner, as also the fact that death of the deceased

had taken place due to the accident which took place in

the course of and arising out of the employment. The

learned Commissioner had fixed monthly wages of the

deceased at Rs.6,000/- and the accident resulting in death

of the deceased had taken place on 21.7.2011. On

31.5.2010, the Central Government has issued notification

enhancing maximum notional monthly wages of workman

from Rs.4,000 to Rs.8,000/-. In that view of the matter,

I hold that monthly wages of the deceased should be fixed

at Rs.6,250/-. Accordingly, the compensation that the

claimants are entitled to receive for the death of their son

is required to be recalculated as follows:

Rs.6,250 x 50/100 x 221.37 = Rs.6,91,781

11. Undoubted legal position as at the time of the

accident resulting in death of the deceased is that under

Section 4(2A) of the Act, the claimants are entitled to

reimbursement of the amount spent for treatment

expenses of the deceased. In this case, the claimants

have produced prescriptions as per Ex.P11 and medical

bills as per Ex.P10 showing that they had spent

Rs.56,378/- towards medical expenses. The learned

Commissioner has not adverted his attention to this

aspect of law and therefore, he has committed a serious

error of law in not awarding reimbursement of medical

bills incurred for medical treatment. Therefore, the

claimants are entitled to receive a sum of Rs.56,378/-

incurred for medical treatment.

12. Further, as rightly contended by the learned

counsel for the appellants, the claimants, who are parents

of the deceased, are also entitled to receive compensation

towards funeral expenses. I am of the view that in this

case, the claimants are entitled to receive Rs.5,000/-

towards funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants are entitled

to receive a total compensation of Rs.7,53,159/- as

against Rs.6,64,110/- awarded by the learned

Commissioner. The said compensation shall carry interest

at 12% per annum w.e.f. 30 days from the date of the

accident till date of realization. Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) The above appeal is allowed in part.

b) The impugned award is modified to the extent that the claimants are entitled to receive a total compensation of Rs.7,53,159/- as against Rs.6,64,110/-

                awarded    by     the   learned      Commissioner
                with   interest   at    12%    per     annum   from

thirty days from the date of the accident till deposit.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR