Karnataka High Court
A Hanumantha vs G H Kumara on 22 June, 2022
Bench: H T Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD
MFA No.739 OF 2019(WC)
BETWEEN
A HANUMANTHA
S/O ANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT NES EXTENSION
HOSADURGA TLAUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.KUMARA K G., ADV. )
AND
1 . G H KUMARA
S/O HANUMANTHAPPA
AGED MAJOR
R/O MARUTHI NILAYA
KALLESHWARA EXTENSION
HOSADURGA TOWN
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577527.
2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.,
MELAGIRI PLAZA
2
DENTAL COLLEGE ROAD
DAVANAGERE 577001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.L. SREEKANTA RAO, ADV. R2:
NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DATED 04.12.2019)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
WORKMENS COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17/09/2018, PASSED IN
ECA NO.9/2017, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC., AND MACT, HOSADURGA, PARTLY
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION
AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 30(1) of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') has been filed by the claimant
being aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.9.2018
passed by Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Hosadurga in
ECA 9/2017.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that the claimant was working as
driver under respondent No.1, who is the owner of the
tempo travellor. On 17.4.2017 at about 1:30 am,
when the claimant was driving the tempo bearing
No.KA-16-B-9379 from Dharwad to Hosadurga via
Hubli byepass road, near gas godown, a lorry came in
a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in tempo
touching the hind portion of the lorry. As a result,
claimant sustained multiple injuries and was
hospitalized.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section
22 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded
that he spent huge amount towards medical
expenses, conveyance, etc.
4. On service of notice, the respondents
appeared through their respective 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 framed the issues and thereafter
recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was
examined as PW-1 and Dr.Sridhara was examined as
PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to
Ex.P20. On behalf of the respondents, one witness
was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited document
namely Ex.R1. The Commissioner, by the impugned
judgment, inter alia, held that the claimant was
working under respondent No.1 and he sustained
injuries during the course of employment and further
held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of
Rs.197,500/- along with interest and directed the
Insurance Company to deposit the compensation
amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, this
appeal has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant has
contended that due to the accident the claimant has
sustained grievous injuries. The doctor has assessed
the disability at 27%. The Tribunal has not granted
any compensation for 'future medical expenses'. The
overall compensation awarded 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 contended that there is
no substantial question of law arising for consideration
in this appeal. The injuries sustained by the claimant
are minor in nature. Considering the nature of injuries
and evidence of doctor, the Commissioner has rightly
assessed the disability and applied correct factor and
awarded just and reasonable compensation. Hence, he
sought for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the judgment and award passed by the
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.
9. It is not in dispute that the claimant was
working as driver under respondent No.1 and he
suffered injuries during the course of his employment.
The Tribunal considering the nature of injuries and
evidence of doctor has rightly assessed the disability
and as per provisions of Section 4(1)(B) of the Act,
wages has been rightly taken as Rs.8,000/- p.m. and
applied correct factor and awarded just and
reasonable compensation. Moreover, there is no
substantial question of law arising for consideration in
this appeal.
10. In view of the above, I am of the opinion
that there is no error in the judgment and award
passed by the Commissioner. Hence, the appeal is
devoid of merits and accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DM
