Karnataka High Court
Vinoda @ B Vinodraj vs Iffco Tokio General Ins Co Ltd on 18 July, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.7436 OF 2019(ECA)
BETWEEN
VINODA @ B VINODRAJ
S/O SANNA BORAIAH
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
R/O GANGAIUHANATTI VILLAGE
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., ADV.)
AND
1. IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS CO LTD
REP BY ITS MANAGER
NO.7/432 PLA AND RD BANK,
LAWYER ROAD
KUVEMPUNAGARA
DAVANAGERE 57002.
2. THIPPESWAMY B.T
S/O THIPPAIAH
R/O SASALAHATTI VILLAGE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501.
2
3. MANJUNATHA R
S/O RAJANNA DRIVER
R/O CHANNABASAIAHNAHATTI
CHALLAKERE TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501.
4. SHANMUKHAPPA
S/O NANJUNDAPPA
MAJOR
R/O SADARHALLY VILLAGE
CHITRADURGA TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 577501.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.V. HEGDE MULKHAND, ADV. FOR R1:
NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 ARE DISPENSED WITH
VIDE ORDER DATED: 16.10.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:02.03.2019 PASSED IN ECA.NO.1/2017 ON
THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION,
CHALLAKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section
30(1) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) being
aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.3.2019 passed by
the Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for
Employees Compensation, Challakere in ECA 1/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that the claimant was an employee
and was working as coolie under respondent No.1. On
29.4.2016, when he was engaged in loading the mud
to the tractor and trailer bearing No.KA-6-TA-6319 in
Nayakanahatti Village, Challakere Taluk, the driver of
the said vehicle moved the same in rash and negligent
manner and heap of mud fell on the lower back of the
claimant. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries
and was hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed petition before the
Commissioner for Employees Compensation seeking
compensation for the injuries sustained by him during
the course of his employment.
4. On service of summons, the respondents
appeared through counsel and filed written statements
in which the averments made in the petition were
denied.
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,
the Commissioner for Employees Compensation
framed the issues and thereafter recorded the
evidence and by impugned judgment, inter alia, held
that the claimant was an employee under respondent
No.1 and he sustained injuries during the course of his
employment and further held that he is entitled for
compensation of Rs.134,300/- along with interest at
9% p.a. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
raised the following contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he
was working as coolie under respondent No.1 and
earning Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day
as bhata, but the Commissioner has taken the
notional income as merely as Rs.6,000/- per month.
Even as per Section 4 of the Act, maximum monthly
wages has been fixed as Rs.8,000/-.
Secondly, as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, in
case of injury, the Commissioner instead of taking
60% of the income of the claimant while determining
the compensation, has erred in taking only 50% of the
income.
Thirdly, the Commissioner has erred in awarding
interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the
date of deposit instead of 12% p.a. from one month
from the date of accident till realization.
Fourthly, the overall compensation granted by
the Commissioner is on the lower side. Hence, he
sought for allowing the appeal.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for
the Insurance Company has raised following counter
contentions:
Firstly, even though the claimant claims that he
was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per
day as bhata, but he has not produced any documents
to prove the same. Therefore, the Commissioner has
rightly assessed the income of the claimant at
Rs.6,000/- p.m.
Secondly, considering the injuries sustained by
the claimant and considering the age and avocation of
the claimant, the Commissioner has granted just and
reasonable compensation and it does not call for
interference. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
9. The substantial questions of law that arises
for consideration in this appeal are:
"1. Whether the Commissioner is justified in
considering the monthly income of the claimant at
Rs.6,000/- even though he has established that he
was earning more than Rs.6,000/- p.m.?
2. Whether the Commissioner is justified in
considering only 50% of the income of the claimant
while determining the compensation in case of injury?
3. Whether the Commissioner is justified in
awarding interest at 9% p.a. from the date of claim
petition till deposit of amount instead of 12% p.a.
from one month from the date of accident until
realization?"
10. It is not in dispute that the claimant
sustained injuries during the course of his
employment while he was working as coolie under
respondent No.1.
The claimant has specifically contended that he
was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per
day as bhata. During the course of cross examination,
the respondent-Insurance Company has not elicited
any worthwhile information from the evidence of the
claimant. Under the circumstances, as per the Section
4(1B) of the Employees Compensation Act, the Central
Government has issued notification dated 31.5.2010
stating that the monthly wages has been fixed as
Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, the income of the claimant
has to be taken at Rs.8000/- p.m.
As per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, in case of
injury, 60% of the monthly wages has to be
considered while determining the compensation. But
the Commissioner has erred in considering 50% of the
income. The Commissioner has rightly applied the
relevant factor of 226.38 for the age group of
claimant, who was 22 years at the time of the
accident. The Commissioner has rightly taken the
whole body disability at 10%. Therefore, the
compensation is reassessed as under:
= Rs.4,800 (60% of Rs.8,000)*226.38*10%
= Rs.108,662/-
Further, the compensation of Rs.66,311/-
awarded by the Commissioner under the head of
'medical expenses' is as per medical bills produced by
the claimant and the same is just and reasonable.
Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.174,973/- (Rs.108,662 +
Rs.66,311)
11. Regarding awarding of interest, in view of
Section 4A of the Act, the claimant is entitled for
interest at 12% p.a. from one month from the date of
accident until realization. But the Commissioner is not
justified in awarding interest at 9% p.a. from the date
of claim petition till deposit of amount.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed in
part. The judgment passed by the Commissioner is
modified.
The claimant is entitled to a total compensation
of Rs.174,973/-.
The Insurance Company is directed to deposit
the compensation amount along with interest @ 12%
p.a. from one month from the date of accident until
realization within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
