Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha vs Dhanalakshmi on 7 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:44680
MFA No. 2019 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2019 OF 2019(ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA,
S/O N.KRISHNOJI RAO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/O NEAR DANAMMANA MORI,
GOVINDAPURA,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
2. SACHIDANANDA BABAJI,
S/O C.KRISHNA RAO,
MAJOR,
R/O NEAR DANAMMANA MORI,
GOVINDAPURA,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by JAI JYOTHI J (BY SRI.P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. DHANALAKSHMI,
W/O LATE B.S.RAGHAVENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
2. ANUSHREE,
W/O LATE B.S.RAGHAVENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN DHANALAKSHMI.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:44680
MFA No. 2019 of 2019
1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF
C/O UPENDRA K.T.,
PRASADH NILAYA,
L.I.G-1-18, KHB COLONY,
GOPALA,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201.
3. SHAKUNTHALA,
W/O SUNDARA POOJARI,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/O 1ST CROSS, TIPPUNAGARA,
NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE,
GOPALA,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
RURAL SUB DIVISION,
MESCOM, KEB CIRCLE,
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3;
SRI.B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
R2 - MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:31.12.2018 PASSED ON ECA NO.7/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING
COMPENSATION OF RS.8,30,988/- WITH INTEREST AT 12
PERCENT P.A. FROM 06.03.2012 DATE OF DEATH OF THE
PETITIONER TILL PAYMENT WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE
DATE OF THIS ORDER.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:44680
MFA No. 2019 of 2019
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the award passed in ECA No.7/2014
dated 31.12.2018 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge
and Employees Compensation Commissioner,
Shivamogga. The claim petition was filed seeking
compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Initially,
the deceased filed the petition seeking compensation in
the year 2014. The accident had taken place on
02.01.2010 and the claim petition was filed on
19.10.2010. Thereafter, on 16.03.2012 the employee died
and thereafter the Legal representatives were brought on
record.
2. It is the case of the claimant that the deceased
was working discharging duties as electrician for the
respondent, i.e., the appellant herein. They were
constructing the building and paying an amount of
Rs.250/- per day as wages with a bata of Rs.50/-. On
02.01.2010 at about 12.30 p.m., as per the instructions of
the employer, the electrician was fixing the electrical doom
NC: 2023:KHC:44680
light to the pillars of the entrance gate. The doom light
was to be installed on the pillar at a height of 12 to 14
feet. During the course of his employment, for fixing the
doom light, he was removing the dry concrete stored in
the pipe with an iron rod in order to fix the doom light and
came into contact with the high-tension electrical wire,
which is about 8 to 9 feet height away from the pillar, and
he sustained electrocution. He fell down from the pillar and
he sustained grievous burn injuries and was brought to
MC.Gann Hospital, Shivamogga. As per the advice of the
doctor, injured was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital,
Bengaluru and also Sahil Hospital, Mumbai. He had spent
an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- towards medical expenses.
Then on 09.07.2010 he issued a notice to the respondent
claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-
and he filed the petition on 19.10.2010. He died on
06.03.2012 and the LR's were brought on record and the
Court below considering the evidence has granted an
amount of Rs.8,30,988/-.
NC: 2023:KHC:44680
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
initially claim petition was filed for the severe injuries
sustained by the employer in the accident; thereafter, he
died. No amendment petition was filed seeking
compensation for the death of the deceased, pleadings
were not amended. It is submitted that they have not let
in any evidence to show that the death was caused
because of the injuries sustained by the employee in the
year 2010. Without examining anyone and without leading
any cogent evidence the Court below had considered their
case and granted the compensation. Learned counsel for
the appellant submit that the Court below has passed the
award without any basis and without any evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant respondent
submits that the Court below considering the Post Mortem
certificate and other evidence has held that there was
employer - employee relationship and because of the
injuries sustained by the deceased while he was installing
tube light in the house of the respondents, due to
NC: 2023:KHC:44680
electrification he sustained injuries. Learned counsel
submits that the incident had taken place on 02.01.2010.
Even after 13 years, the family members could not enjoy
the fruits of the award.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 appeared
and submitted that no relief is granted against the
respondent No.4.
6. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the entire material on record.
7. This appeal was admitted on 18.12.2019 on the
following substantial questions of law :
c) Whether the Commissioner for
Employee's Compensation/Tribunal is
justified in awarding the compensation
of an amount of Rs.8,30,988/- with 12%
interest per annum from 06.03.2012 till
the date of realization when there is no
issue with regard to relationship of
employer and employee?
NC: 2023:KHC:44680
d) Whether the Commissioner for
Employee's Compensation/Tribunal is
justified in awarding compensation
without framing proper issue with regard
to fastening of liability of on the owners?
e) Whether the Commissioner for
Employee's Compensation/Tribunal is
justified in awarding the compensation
ignoring the acquittal order dated 8th
August, 2016 made in C.C
No.1322/2010 on the file of the III
Additional Civil Judge and JMFC.,
Shivamogga ?
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the appellant, the claim petition was filed for
compensation by the employee for the injuries sustained
on 19.10.2010. When the employee died on 16.02.2012,
the claimants were supposed to amend the pleading and
adduce the evidence to show that because of the said
NC: 2023:KHC:44680
injuries sustained by the deceased about two years ago,
he has succumbed to the said injuries and died. The
evidence on record reveals that no doctor was examined
by the claimants. In that view of the matter, this Court
deems it appropriate to set aside the order passed in ECA
No. No.7/2014 and remand the matter before the Court
below for fresh consideration. The parties are at liberty to
adduce further evidence and amend the pleadings, and the
Court below, considering the same shall pass appropriate
orders and the amount shall be released to the owner of
the vehicle. Application is filed for adducing the additional
evidence, these documents the registry shall return to the
appellant he is at liberty to file the same before the Court
below and the Court below shall consider the same in
accordance with the law.
i. Without further notice, both parties shall appear
before the Tribunal on 18.12.2023 and the Tribunal shall
decide the case within three months from 18.12.2023.
NC: 2023:KHC:44680
ii. Registry is directed to send the entire record
along with the application filed by the claimant under
Order 41 Rule 27.
iii. Amount deposited by the appellant shall remain
in the deposit.
In light of this Order is being passed, IA No.1/2022 is
dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RMS
CT:SNN
