Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager,National ... vs Smt Rekha Dadaso Suryavaunshi on 6 July, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22417 OF 2010 (WC-)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22090 OF 2010
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. REKHA DADASO SURYAVANSHI
AGE.26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. GAJABHARWADI,
TQ.CHIKKODI, DIST.BELGAUM.
2. KUMAR VIJAY DADASO SURYAVANSHI
AGE.5 YEARS,
R/O. GAJABHARWADI,
TQ.CHIKKODI, DIST.BELGAUM.
3. KUMARI RANI DADASO SURYAVANSHI
AGE.02 YEARS,
R/O. GAJABHARWADI,
TQ.CHIKKODI, DIST.BELGAUM.
4. SRI SHANKAR RAMA SURYAVANSHI
AGE.59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GAJABHARWADI,
TQ.CHIKKODI, DIST.BELGAUM.
Digitally signed
by SUJATA
5. SMT. PARWATI SHANKAR SURYAVANSHI
SUBHASH
PAMMAR
Location:
AGE.51 YEARS,
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA,
R/O. GAJABHARWADI,
DHARWAD
TQ.CHIKKODI, DIST.BELGAUM.
SINCE APPELLANTS NO.2 AND 3
ARE MINORS, R/BY APPELLANT NO.1
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
AND:
1. SRI ANIL AATMARAM NIKKAM
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. GAJABHARWADI,
TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELGAUM.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAMDEVGALLI, BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. K. KAYAKMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2,
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 26.03.2010 PASSED IN W.C.A. SR NO.5/2009 ON
THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
IN MFA NO.22090/2010
BETWEEN:
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
RAMADEVGALLI BELGAUM,
THROUGH THE ASST. MANAGER,
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
SUJATA COMPLEX,HUBLI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S K KAYAKAMATH, ADVOCATE)
-3-
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
AND:
1. SMT REKHA DADASO SURYAVAUNSHI
AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O:GAJABHARWADI,
TQ:CHIKKODI, DIST:BELGAUM.
2. KUMAR VIJAY DADASO SURYAVAUNSHI,
AGE. 5 YEARS, R/O:GAJABHARWADI,
TQ:CHIKKODI, DIST:BELGAUM.
3. KUMARI RANI DADASO SURYAVAUNSHI
AGE. 2 YEARS, R/O:GAJABHARWADI,
TQ:CHIKKODI, DIST:BELGAUM.
4. SRI.SHANKAR RAMA SURYAVAUNSHI
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O:GAJABHARWADI,
TQ:CHIKKODI, DIST:BELGAUM.
5. SMT.PARVATI
W/O SHANKAR SURYAVAUNSHI
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O:GAJABHARWADI,
TQ:CHIKKODI,DIST:BELGAUM.
6. SRI.ANIL ATMARAM NIKKAM
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:BUSINESS,
R/O:GAJABHARWADI,
TQ:CHIKKODI, DIST:BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI HARISH M. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1TO R5,
R6 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 26.03.2010 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-I, BELGAUM,
BELGAUM DISTRICT IN W.C.S.R.05-2009 AND TO PASS ANY
OTHER ORDER OR ORDER AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT
-4-
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASES, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These appeals are at the instance of the Insurance
Company and the claimants calling in question the legality
and validity of the award dated 26.03.2010 in
W.C.S.R.No.05/2009 passed by the learned Labour Officer
and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub
Division-I, Belgaum (for short "the Commissioner").
2. Brief facts are that one Sri Dadaso Suryavanshi
was working as a coolie in tractor-trailers bearing
registration No.KA-23/TA-3492, KA-23/TA-4604 & 4605
owned by respondent No.1-Sri Anil Atmaram Nikkam and
insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. On
17.11.2008, while deceased was working as coolie in the
said tractor-trailers which was loaded with the sugar cane,
near Gajabharavadi, Chougala Mala on Konnur Road, on
account of rash and negligent driving of the said tractor
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
trailers, the deceased fell down from the same and later
on, vehicle ran over him resultantly he died.
3. On claim petition being filed, the same was
resisted by the owner-insured by filing his statement of
objections, in which he admitted the employer and
employee relationship, as well as the accident taking place
arising out of and in the course of employment. The
appellant-Insurance Company filed separate statement of
objections denying material averments in the claim
petition.
4. During enquiry, claimant No.1 examined herself
as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Respondent No.1-
Owner examined himself as RW.1 and Exs.R.1 to R3 were
marked. Insurance company examined one of its
employees as RW2 and Policy of Insurance was marked.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and perusing the records, learned Commissioner has
awarded compensation of Rs.3,32,768/- with the interest
thereon.
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
6. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company
advanced twofold contentions. Firstly, he contended that
finding of the learned Commissioner that there was
employer and employee relationship between the owner of
the tractor-trailers and the deceased is based on no
evidence and therefore, it is illegal. Secondly, he
contended that the Policy of Insurance issued by the
appellant-Insurance Company did not cover the risk of the
deceased under Sub-Section 1 of Section 147 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') and therefore, the
appellant is not liable to pay compensation.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants in support of
their appeal opposes the contention of learned counsel for
the Insurance Company and per contra, he submitted that
the compensation awarded is on the lower side. Learned
Commissioner has committed an error in taking monthly
income of the deceased only at Rs.3,200/- and on the
other hand, it should have been taken at Rs.4,000/- per
month. He also submitted that the rate of interest
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
awarded by the learned Commissioner on the
compensation amount is erroneous and on the other hand,
it was his submission that the learned Commissioner ought
to have awarded interest on the compensation at 12% per
annum with effect from 30 days from the date of accident
and accordingly, he prayed that appeal should be allowed
and compensation should be enhanced.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides
and I have perused the records.
9. The case of the claimants is that deceased
Dadaso Suryavaunshi was working as a coolie in tractor-
trailers bearing registration No. No.KA-23/TA-3492, KA-
23/TA-4604 & 4605 owned by respondent No.1. It is
further case of the claimants that on 17.11.2008, while
deceased was proceeding in said the tractor-trailers as per
the instructions of owner-employer, he fell down from the
vehicle and the it ran over him, resulting in his death in
the spot itself.
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
10. The owner-insured who was respondent No.1
before the learned Commissioner in his statement of
objections has admitted the fact that there was employer
and employee relationship and the deceased had died in
the accident arising in the course of and out of
employment. During his cross examination also, it was
elicited that tractor-trailer in question was loaded in the
field of one Khadar Sanadi and was proceeding to another
field for further loading the tractor trailers and at that
time, the deceased was proceeding in the said tractor-
trailers as he was employee-coolie and he had fallen down
from the vehicle and it ran over him resulting in his death.
In that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground
to interfere with the finding of the learned Commissioner
that employer and employee relationship between the
owner-insured and the deceased has been established and
that being supported by the evidence on record is not
liable to be interfered with in an appeal under Section 30
of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. Hence, there is no
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant Insurance Company in this behalf.
11. Insofar as the coverage under Sub-Section 1 of
Section 147 of the Act for the deceased is concerned, from
the facts as borne out from the record, the deceased was
working as Coolie in the tractor-trailers which is a goods
vehicle. The only claim arising from the accident is insofar
as death of the deceased is concerned and for the same
there is compulsory coverage for three employees in LMV
goods vehicle. In that view of the matter, there is no merit
in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company that there is no compulsory coverage under Sub
Section 1 of Section 147 of the Act, for the deceased.
12. In regard to the enhancement of compensation
awarded is concerned, the learned Commissioner has
taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,200/- per
month. The accident had taken place in the year 2008.
Learned Commissioner having recorded a finding of fact
regarding income of the deceased, I do not find any good
- 10 -
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
ground to interfere with the same and accordingly, the
income of the deceased is maintained as Rs.3,200/-.
Therefore, as regards the quantum of compensation
awarded is concerned, no case is made out for enhancing
the same.
13. In regard to interest awarded is concerned, law
is clear as per the provisions of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923 itself. The interest that should be
awarded on the compensation is at the rate of 12% per
annum with effect from 30 days from the date of the
accident.
14. Accordingly, in this case also on the
compensation awarded, the claimants are entitled to grant
of interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from
30 days from the date of the accident and the appeal of
the claimant to the said extent is liable to be allowed.
- 11 -
MFA No. 22417 of 2010
C/W MFA No. 22090 of 2010
15. Hence the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal filed by the insurance company
is dismissed as devoid of merits.
ii) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed
in part with regard to the interest in terms
as above.
ii) Amount in deposit shall be transmitted to
the Court of learned jurisdictional Senior
Civil Judge along with the records
forthwith.
iii) In view of disposal of the appeals, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and are disposed
off accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SSP
