Karnataka High Court
Yashodha vs M/S Rusheel Decorators Co. Ltd on 28 November, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:43370
MFA No. 2036 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2036 OF 2017 (WC)
BETWEEN:
1. YASHODHA,
W/O SHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
HOUSE WIFE.
2. RAMESH,
S/O LATE SHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
3. SHARATH,
S/O LATE SHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS.
4. BHARATH,
Digitally
signed by JAI S/O LATE SHIVAIAH,
JYOTHI J AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS,
Location:
HIGH SINCE MINOR,
COURT OF REPTD. BY HIS MOTHER
KARNATAKA
AND NATURAL GUARDIAN APPELLANT NO.1,
ALL ARE RESIDENT OF
HIREGOUJA VILLAGE & POST,
CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK - 577 102.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MOHAN K.N., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:43370
MFA No. 2036 of 2017
AND:
M/S. RUSHEEL DECORATORS CO. LTD.,
AMBLE INDUSTRIAL AREA,
GOWDANAHALLI,
CHIKKAMGALURU TALUK - 577 101.
REPTD. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. YADUNANDAN N., ADVOCATE)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED:03.11.2016 PASSED IN ECA.NO.288/2014 ON THE FILE
OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
CHIKKAMAGALURU, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR JUDGMENT, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed by the family members of the
deceased employee aggrieved by the award passed in
E.C.A.No.288/2014 dated 03.11.2016 by the 2nd
Addl.Sr.Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru. An
application is filed under Section 22 of the Employee's
Compensation Act seeking compensation.
NC: 2023:KHC:43370
2. It is the case of the claimants that the husband of
the claimant No.1 and the father of the claimant Nos.2 to
4 was working as a coolie under the respondent and on
24.09.2012 at about 11:30 a.m., when he was working as
per the instruction of the respondent, the junior operator
suddenly switched on the machine, due to which the right
hand and head of the deceased has been stuck inside the
machine and as a result, he died on the spot. According to
the claimants, the deceased was aged 52 years and was
getting wages of an amount of Rs.400/- per day.
3. The employer had admitted the relationship of the
employer and employee. It is stated that the deceased
was provided induction programs before assigning the
work. He was also provided personal protective
equipment and proper instructions. But the deceased had
entered the restricted area and sustained injuries.
4. According to the respondent - employer, the
deceased was earning an amount of Rs.5,200/- per
NC: 2023:KHC:43370
month. He had paid an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the
claimants as a compensation by way of two cheque drawn
on Bank of Baroda, Chikkmagaluru Branch dated
24.09.2012 in the name of first claimant. On 27.09.2012,
the respondent had paid compensation of an amount of
Rs.5,00,000/- in favour of the first claimant by way of
cheque drawn on Bank of Baroda dated 28.09.2012. The
claimants have already received an amount of
Rs.6,00,000/- and therefore, the respondent is not liable
to pay the compensation.
5. The Court below considering the income of the
deceased at Rs.6,000/- and by deducting 50% had held
that the claimants are entitled for compensation of an
amount of Rs.4,38,600/-. The Court below while
considering the admission made by the claimants that they
have received an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and as they
have already received more than the amount that is
calculated, had dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved
thereby, the claimants are before this Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:43370
6. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants
submits that the Court below went wrong in dismissing the
application, when the employer-employee relationship is
admitted. He submits that the admission that was made is
that the amount is granted not as compensation but as a
bonus as such the Court below ought to have granted the
compensation as per the provisions of the Act.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the employer-
respondent submits that they have given the amount
immediately after the accident, an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- in two steps. He submits
that it is the compensation and when there is a clear
admission on the part of the claimants, the Court below
had rightly dismissed the application. It is submitted that
they were ready to provide job to any one of the children
of the deceased workman as per their qualification. It is
submitted that the employer has already having given the
compensation and has already offered them an alternative
employment also. It is submitted that the Court below
NC: 2023:KHC:43370
had rightly dismissed the claim petition and no grounds
are made out seeking interference of this Court.
8. Having heard the learned counsel on either side,
perused the entire material on record. The Court below
had calculated compensation of an amount of
Rs.4,38,600/-. Admittedly, by way of cheque after the
accident, one on 24.09.2012 and the other on 27.09.2012,
an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/-
respectively were transferred to the account of the wife of
the deceased workman i.e., the first claimant herein.
Considering this, the Court below had rightly dismissed the
claim petition. This Court is not able to appreciate the
contention of the learned counsel for the claimants that it
is not compensation but it is a bonus. With the salary, the
claimant was getting, getting a bonus of Rs.6,00,000/-
cannot be believed and further all the more the employer
on humanitarian grounds has already offered job to any
one of the children. Hence, in view of the same, this Court
finds no reason to interfere.
NC: 2023:KHC:43370
9. Accordingly, the appeal of the claimants is
dismissed.
i. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court
Records to the Tribunal, along with certified
copy of the order passed by this Court forthwith
without any delay.
ii. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/-
JUDGE
MEG
