Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager vs R Rama Naik S/O Late Reddy Naik on 16 June, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixitpresided Byksdj
-1-
MFA No. 21301 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
M.F.A. NO.21301 OF 2010 (WC)
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD
BELLARY, NOW REP BY ITS
DIVISIONAL MANAGER
TANVEER AHMED
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
OPP:RADHIKA TALKIES BELLARY
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S S KOLIWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. R RAMA NAIK S/O LATE REDDY NAIK
AGE 30 YEARS, OC:EX-DRIVER
R/O BELAGAL TANDA, BELLARY
2. ABDUL KHUDDUSE
Digitally S/O SUBHANE SAB
signed by
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
AGE MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY
VISHAL PATTIHAL
NINGAPPA Location:
NO.:KA-34/4550. R/O DOOR NO.:9,
PATTIHAL DHARWAD
Date: WARD NO.:21, KOLUR BAZAR
2022.06.17
10:02:31
+0530
DIST:BELLARY
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
(R2 - SERVED)
-2-
MFA No. 21301 of 2010
MFA FILED U/S.30 OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION
ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 14-05-
2009, PASSED IN WCA NO.388/2004, ON THE FILE OF THE
LABOUR OFFICER & COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION, SUB-DIV.II, BELLARY, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.1,02,186/- ALONG WITH INTEREST AT
THE RATE OF 12% P.A. FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL
DEPOSIT.
THIS MFA COMING FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the Insurer seeks to lay a challenged
to the Judgment & Order dated 14.05.2009 entered by the
Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Sub Division-
II, Ballari, whereby the claim petition in WCA No.388/2004
having been favoured, a compensation of Rs.1,02,186/-
with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. has been awarded.
The learned Panel Counsel appearing for the appellant-
Insurer vehemently argues that no compensation could
have been awarded inasmuch as there is absolutely no
evidentiary material for proving the accident in question or
the nature of injury and kind of medical treatment
therefor.
MFA No. 21301 of 2010
2. After service of notice, claimant having entered
appearance through his counsel vehemently resists the
appeal making submissions in justification of the impugned
Judgment & Order and the reasons on which it has been
constructed. Learned counsel with equal vehemence
contends that the statutory authority having advantage of
expertise in the matter has made the award and
therefore, the appeal under Section 30(1) of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 being restrictive
cannot be entertained. Having so contended, he seeks
dismissal of the appeal.
3. The appellant-Insurer has framed the following
three substantial questions of law in his memorandum of
appeal:
1. Whether the Commissioner is justified in
determining the loss of earning capacity of
the respondent/petitioner at 25% contrary
to the Law, evidence, documents and
material on record and contrary to the
principles laid down?
MFA No. 21301 of 2010
2. Whether the Commissioner is justified in
law in determining the monthly wages of
the petitioner at Rs.3,500/- per month
and justified in law in awarding
Rs.1,02,186/- as compensation?
3. Whether the Commissioner is justified in
awarding the interest at 12% from the
date of accident?
4. A bare perusal of the question No.1 shows that
it is not a question of law at all much less the substantial
question of law inasmuch as answer to the same has to be
found out by turning the pages of the record of evidence.
Ordinarily, a question of law is one, to answer which one
has to turn the pages of statute book, subject to just all
exceptions into which the argued case of the appellant fits.
5. The second question of law relates to the
quantum of monthly wages taken at the rate of Rs.3,500/-
for the accident year 2004; this question need not detain
the Court any longer inasmuch as for the said accident
year even the Notional Income Chart prepared by the Lok
MFA No. 21301 of 2010
Adalath of this Court also specifies Rs.3,500/-; that apart
one cannot keep the commonsense in cold storage while
deciding what was the monthly income of a driver for the
years gone by. Therefore, this question is answered in the
affirmative.
6. The third question even if assumed to be a
substantial question of law, again need not detain the
Court any longer inasmuch as it speaks of reckoning point
for the accrual of interest. This question is answered by
the Statute itself. Learned counsel appearing for the
claimants is more than justified in contending that interest
ought to have been awarded from 31st day after the
accident, since it is the Parliamentary mandate. Though no
counter appeal is filed, in the peculiar facts &
circumstances of the case, the interest shall be reckoned
from 31st day after the accident.
7. In the above circumstances, this appeal fails.
However, the interest shall be computed from 31st day of
the accident. The appellant is directed to make good the
MFA No. 21301 of 2010
differential of the amount within a period of eight weeks,
failing which the rate of interest prescribed by the
Commissioner stands substituted by 12% p.a. from the
date of very accident.
The amount in deposit, along with TCRs if any, shall
be transmitted to the jurisdictional Senior Civil Judge at
Ballari for immediate disbursement.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KMS & Vnp*
