Karnataka High Court
Sri Hanumanthappa vs Sri R S Pavan Kumar on 8 March, 2022
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
M.F.A. NO.5950 OF 2019 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O.LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
2. SMT.SAROJAMMA
W/O.HANUMANTHAPPA
MAJOR
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KEMPEGOWDA CIRLCE
JALAMANGALA ROAD
RAMANAGARA TOWN
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 159
.. APPELLANTS
(BY SRI RAJU S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI R.S.PAVAN KUMAR
S/O.R.R.SURYA SHETTI
MAJOR
R/AT VINAYAKANGARA
B.DIVISION, GOWRIBIDANURU TOWN
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 577 201
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY.LTD
NO.540, SHASHANK COMPLEX
1ST FLOOR, OPP SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE
MYSURU- BENGALURU MAIN ROAD
KENGERI
2
BENGALURU - 560 060
REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER
... RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH ; BY SRI
P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
***
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 30 (1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
13.11.2018 PASSED IN ECA NO.14/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE ADDITONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, RAMANAGARA,
PARLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Though this matter is listed for admission, with the
consent of both the learned counsel the same is taken up
for final disposal.
2. Heard learned counsel Mr. Raju S., learned
counsel for appellants and learned counsel Mr. P.B. Raju,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. This is an appeal preferred by the petitioners
being aggrieved by the judgment and award of
compensation dated 13.11.2018 passed in ECA No.
14/2015 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ramanagara and
seeking for an enhancement of the compensation.
4. Brief Facts:
A claim petition came to be filed under Section 10 of
the Employees Compensation Act, 1956 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') seeking compensation of
Rs.50,00,000/- for the death of one Ravichandra son of the
petitioners, arising out of and during the course of his
employment.
5. It is the case of the petitioners that on
07.10.2012 on the instruction of respondent No.1, who is
none other than the employer, the deceased Ravichandra,
took the lorry and drove it along with materials loaded in
the vehicle, during which time lorry got toppled, due to
which Ravichandra died on the spot. It is stated that prior
to the accident deceased Ravichandra was hale and healthy
and was working under employment of respondent No.1 as
driver of the lorry and earning the income of Rs.600/- per
day and Rs.150/- as batta per day.
6. It is the claim of the petitioners that due to the
death of their son deceased Ravichandra, who was the sole
bread winner of the family, they lost earning member in the
family and their livelihood also in stake. They also lost love
and affection of their son, who was managing their family
with his sole income. Respondent No.1, who is the
employer and the owner of the lorry in question of the
deceased Ravichandra and respondent No.2, is the Insurer
of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-31 / 5055, which
was driven by deceased Ravichandra.
7. Since the respondent No.1, is the employer and
the owner of the lorry and respondent No.2, is the Insurer
of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-31 / 5055, a claim
petition came to be filed under the Act seeking for
compensation for the death having occurred during the
course and arising out of the employment with respondent
No.1.
8. On service of notice, both the respondents have
appeared and filed their statement of objections.
Respondent No.1 - Owner admitted that deceased
Ravichandra was working under his employment and that
he was the owner of the lorry bearing Registration No. KA-
31 / 5055. He also admitted that the deceased
Ravichandra was paid Rs.600/- per day and Rs.150/- per
day as batta for driving the said lorry. It is also stated that
as on the date of occurrence of the accident respondent
No.1 - Owner of the vehicle insured the said lorry with the
respondent No.2 - Insurer and hence any claim of
compensation be saddled with the respondent No.2 -
Insurer. Respondent No.2 - Insurer filed statement of
objections denying the claim made by the petitioners and
pleaded that there is no relationship of employer and
employee between the deceased Ravichandra and sought
for dismissal of the petition.
9. Based on the pleading the Tribunal framed
relevant issues.
10. In order to substantiate and prove the case the
petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW1 and got
marked in all Ex.P1 to P8. Respondents examined RW1 and
no documents were marked on their behalf.
11 On the basis of the evidence adduced by the
parties and on hearing both the learned counsel for parties
and on going through the documentary evidence both oral
and documentary, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition
and awarded the compensation in a sum of Rs.7,69,700/-
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
accident till the date of realization. It is also held that both
the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the
compensation. However, respondent No.2 - Insurer being
the Insurer of the lorry in question was directed to deposit
the compensation within the period of 90 days from the
date of judgment.
12. It is the contention of the learned counsel for
appellants that the judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal is erroneous and the Tribunal has failed to consider
the degree of deprivation on account of death of the
deceased Ravichandra, son of appellants and the same
requires to be set aside and compensation has to be
enhanced. He further contends that the Tribunal has
awarded meager compensation and has not awarded
compensation in accordance with the Gazatte notification of
the Central Government dated 31.05.2020, wherein the
income ought to have been taken at Rs.8,000/- instead of
Rs.7,000/- taken by the Tribunal. It is only on these
grounds present appeal has been preferred by the
appellants.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
- Insurer vehemently opposes the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for appellants by stating that the judgment
and award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper. It
denied the claim made by the claimants, inter alia, also
took up a plea that the accident occurred due to the fault of
the deceased Ravichandra. Hence, he contended that the
judgment and award of the Tribunal does not warrant any
interference by this Court and sought for dismissal of the
claim petition.
14. The learned counsel for appellant framed two
substantial question of law involved in the matter, ie.,
Whether Tribunal is right in awarding meager compensation
and Whether the Tribunal is right in awarding compensation
to the accident of the year 2012 at Rs.7,69,700/-.
15. On the basis of the pleading the Tribunal
framed relevant issues.
16. On consideration of the material placed before
the court including exhibits produced by the petitioners and
on hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for both
sides, the point that arise for consideration before this court
is as to 'Whether Tribunal has awarded compensation as
prescribed under the Act and Whether the impugned order
of the Tribunal is perverse and illegal.
17. It is not in dispute that the accident occurred on
07.10.2012 while the deceased Ravichandra was driving the
loaded lorry, which was owned by the respondent No.1 and
the deceased was under employment of respondent No.1
and earning salary of rs.600/- per day and Rs.150/- as
batta per day, which has been admitted by respondent
No.1. The relationship of employee and employer is
admitted. Accident having been occurred on 07.10..2012 is
also admitted. The dispute is only with regard to
respondent No.2 - Insurer, who claims that the relationship
of employer and employee needs to be proved.
18. In the present case on hand, respondent No.1 -
employer having filed statement of objections has adduced
his evidence has admitted the relationship of employer and
employee between him and deceased Ravichandra. Police
records filed in criminal case, such as, FIR and charge sheet
would clearly disclose that there exits the relationship of
employer and employee between him and deceased
Ravichandra.
19. On perusal of all these material documents, it is
not in dispute that the accident has occurred to the
deceased in the course of and arising out of employment
with respondent No.1. All the issues which were framed by
the Tribunal are held in favour of the petitioners.
20. The substantial question of law that would
arises for consideration before this Court in the present
appeal is to the effect that
1. "Whether the Tribunal assessing
notional income of Rs.7,000/- per
month of the deceased Ravichandra
is correct ?"
2. 'Whether the income ought to be
taken at Rs.8,000/- per month?'
21. On perusal of all these material documents, it is
not in dispute that the accident has occurred to the
deceased Ravichandra during the course of and arising out
of employment with respondent No.1. All these issues
which were framed by the Tribunal are held in favour of the
petitioners.
22. The Tribunal has adopted notional income of
Rs.7,000/-, in my opinion, is not appropriate considering
the notification of the Central Government dated
31.052020. Accordingly, the notional income is required to
be taken at rs.8,000/-. In case of claim with regard to
death of a workman, it would be taken at 50% of the
monthly wages In the present case 50% would be
Rs.4,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled
Rs.8,73,880/- (Rs.4,000/- X 218.47) as against
rs.7,64,645/- awarded by the Tribunal.
23. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards
funeral expenses, which is just and proper and the same is
not interfered.
24. the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of
12% per annum, which is commensurate with the
notification followed, which does not require interference by
this Court.
25. The liability is jointly and severally between the
respondent No.1 - Owner and respondent No.2 - Insurer
Respondent No.2 - Insurer is directed to deposit the award
amount within 90 days, which I do not find any reason to
interfere.
26. In view of the above substantial question of law
arises for consideration, hence point No-1 is answered in
the Negative. Point No.2 is to be held in the affirmative.
27. In view of the discussions made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is partly allowed.;
ii) Consequently, the judgment and award of
compensation dated 13.11.2018 passed in ECA
No. 14/2015 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge,
Ramanagara, is modified.;
iii) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal in
a sum of Rs.7,69,645/- is enhanced to
Rs.8,78,880/-, which is rounded of to
Rs.8,79,000/- (Rupees Eight lakhs seventy
nine thousand only), with 12% interest from
the date of accident till its realization.;
iv) All other conditions imposed by the Tribunal
being left intact.;
v) The insurer shall pay the differential enhanced
compensation amount within a period of four
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment, failing which the interest would
accrue at 9% for the said amount.
vi) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VK
