Karnataka High Court
Smt. Shantavva W/O Rajappa Barki @ ... vs Sri. N. Nagaraj Ballal on 26 November, 2021
Bench: Ravi V.Hosmani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI
M.F.A.No.104283/2017(ECA)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANTAVVA W/O RAJA PPA BARKI @ HAVERI,
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BA LAMBEED , TQ: HANGA L,
DIST: HAVERI-581101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.HARIS H S . MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . SRI. N . NA GARAJ BALLAL,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: ENGINEER AND CONTRACTOR,
BALLAL DEVELOPER PVT . LTD., UDUPI,
R/O: HOTEL JANARDHANA COMPLEX,
NEAR KSRTC BUS STAND, UD UPI- 576101.
2 . THE AUTHORISED SIGNATORY,
FUTURE GEN ERAL INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD,
EMPIRE MALL, 2ND FLOOR, N O-S14,
S15, K 15, M.G. ROAD,
MANGALURU- 575002.
... RES PONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S. ARANI, AD VOCATE FOR R2)
(NOTICE T O R1 DI SPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FI LED U/S .30( 1) OF THE EMPLOY EES
COMPESNATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO ENHANCE
COMPESANTION BY MODIFYING THE JUGGMENT AND AWARD
2
PASSED BY COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMEPNSATION
AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., HANGA L, IN ECA
NO.12/ 2014 DATED04/ 09/ 2017 BY A LLOWING THE A PPEAL.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT , D ELIV ERED THE F OLLOW ING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by applicant challenging order
dated 04.09.2017 passed in ECA No.12/2014 by
Commissioner for Employees Compensation and Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC., Hangal (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to state
that the basic facts regarding age, relationship of
employer and employee and death of workman during
course of and arising out of employment are not in
dispute.
3. The only ground urged by Sri.Harish S.Maigur,
learned counsel for appellant was for enhancement of
compensation insofar as income of deceased workman. It
was submitted that though, applicant had given evidence
that monthly income of deceased was Rs.24,000/-, and
respondent No.1/employer stated in his objections that
deceased was being paid daily wage of Rs.250/-, Trial
Court took his income on notional basis at Rs.5,000/- per
month which was contrary to evidence. It was submitted
that as per upper limit of income, income was enhanced
by Government notification No.Section 4(1-B) dated
31.05.2010 of the Employees Compensation Act, Trial
Court was not justified in taking monthly income at
Rs.5,000/- only.
4. Sri.Rajashekar S. Arani, learned counsel for
respondent insurer supported the award and opposed
enhancement. It was submitted that no evidence was led
by applicant in order to establish monthly income and
daily batta and Trial Court by proper appreciation has
assessed monthly income and awarded compensation.
5. Learned counsel further submits that as per
policy issued, employer has paid premium for covering
risk of four skilled workers, six semi skilled workers and
ten semi skilled workers engaged in construction work for
Rs.2,18,400/- which would come to Rs.4,550/- per month
in case of skilled workers, Rs.4,000/- in case of six semi
skilled workers and Rs.3,900/- in respect of ten semi
skilled workers and submits that liability of insurer would
be only to the said extent.
6. From above submissions, only point that arises
for consideration is "Whether claimant is entitled for
enhancement of compensation as sought for?"
7. Learned counsel for appellant has made
available copies of pleadings, depositions and exhibits
marked before Trial Court for perusal of this Court.
8. On perusal of claim application and objections
filed by respondent No.2/insurer, it is seen that insurer
has not taken any specific objection regarding upper limit
of income before Trial Court. Trial Court while passing
impuged award was assessed income of Rs.5,000/- which
is more than income limit as urged by learned counsel
herein. However, no appeal is filed by insurer.
Therefore, there is no substance in objections of
respondent No.2/insurer. Applicant has stated in her
pleading that deceased was earning Rs.800/- per day +
Rs.200/- per day batta. Respondent No.1/employer has
admitted employment and wage of Rs.250/- per day. In
view of notification dated 31.05.2010, issued by Central
Government notifying monthly income for purpose of
Section 4(1-B) is Rs.8,000/-. Trial court was not justified
in taking monthly income of Rs.5,000/-, it would be
contrary to Act. It also contrary to evidence on record as
respondent No.1/employer has admitted wage of deceased
at Rs.250/- per day which would amounts to Rs.7500/-
per month. Assessment of compensation would have to be
re-worked as follows:
Rs.7500/-X50%=2500X226.38=8,48,925/-+ Rs.25,000/-
for funeral expenses which comes to Rs.8,73,925/- Hence,
point framed for consideration is answered as above.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed in part.
Compensation enhanced from
Rs.5,91,000/- to Rs.8,73,925/-.
The claimant would be entitled for
interest at 12% per annum from 18.07.2012
till deposit.
Sd/-
JUDGE
H MB
