Karnataka High Court
Ahmedshah S/O Madinshah @ Bandinsha vs Sunil And Anr on 18 April, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3027
MFA No. 200953 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.200953 OF 2019 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
AHMEDSHAH S/O MADINSHAH @
BANDINSHA MAKANDAR,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
OCC: DRIVER (NOW NILL),
R/O: MULASAWALGI,
TQ: SINDAGI, DIST: VIJAYAPUR,
NOW RESIDING AT SINDAGI NAKA,
SHIVAGIRI ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANGANABASAVA B. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
SACHIN AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA 1. SUNIL S/O HANAMANTH WADI,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O MAMDAPALLI CHAWL SHAHPETI,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
(OWNER OF THE LORRY
VEHICLE NO.KA-28/C-2170)
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HANAMSHETTY BUILDING,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3027
MFA No. 200953 of 2019
GURUKUL ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586 101.
POLICY NO.68030231140100002094
VALID FROM 03.11.2014 TO 02.11.2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI UDAY P. HONGUNTIKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2;
R-1 - SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
07.08.2018 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION,
VIJAYAPUR AT VIJAYAPUR IN E.C.A. NO.134/2015 AND MODIFY
THE SAID JUDGMENT AND AWARD BY ENHANCING THE
COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO RS.10,00,000/- AS CLAIMED BY
THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri Sanganabasava B. Patil, learned counsel
for the appellant as well as Sri Manjunath Mallayya Shetty,
learned counsel who argued on behalf of Sri Uday P.
Honguntikar, learned counsel who is representing
respondent No.2. Despite service of notice, respondent
No.1 did not chose to appear.
2. Disputing the quantum that is awarded as
compensation by the Commissioner for Employees
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3027
Compensation, Vijayapura through orders in ECA
No.134/2015 dated 07.08.2018, the present appeal is
filed.
3. Making his submission with regard to the merits
of the matter, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the Commissioner went wrong in assessing the
notional income of the appellant as well as applying the
relevant factor.
4. Having gone through the contents of the
material brought on record and upon hearing both the
learned counsels, the following substantial question of law
is framed for consideration:
Whether the notional income taken and the
relevant factor applied by the Commissioner for
Employees Compensation, Vijayapura while
dealing with the matter is in consonance with
the provisions of law?
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant was aged
about 40 years by the date of accident. As per the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3027
notification issued by the Government of India vide
notification No.S.O. 1258(E) dated 31.05.2010, notional
monthly wages is fixed at Rs.8,000/-. However, the
Commissioner took the notional income as Rs.6,000/- per
month. Therefore, as rightly contended, notional income
has to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. The
Commissioner took the relevant factor as 99.37. However,
as per Schedule IV R/w Section 4 of the Employees
Compensation Act, the relevant factor is 184.17. The
disability admittedly is 10%. On applying these
parameters, the compensation which the appellant would
be entitled to is Rs.88,401.60/- (Rs.4,800 i.e., 60% of
Rs.8,000 x 184.17 x 10%.
6. Thus, the following:
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed in part.
ii. The amount awarded as compensation by the
Commissioner for Employees Compensation,
Vijayapura through orders in ECA No.134/2015
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3027
dated 07.08.2018 is enhanced from
Rs.46,080/- to Rs.88,402/-.
iii. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from the date of
accident till the date of deposit.
iv. The second respondent is directed to deposit
the enhanced amount with interest within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of copy of this order.
v. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount.
Sd/-
JUDGE
LG
