Karnataka High Court

The Executive Engineer vs Anusuyamma W/O Gadhilingappa on 21 February, 2024

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                    -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299
                                                            MFA No. 21384 of 2012
                                        C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386
                                          of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No.
                                        21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA
                                                                No. 21653 of 2012


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                              DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

                                                 BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
                       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21384 OF 2012 (WC-)
                                                   C/W
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21385 OF 2012
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21386 OF 2012
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21649 OF 2012
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21651 OF 2012
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21652 OF 2012
                            MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 21653 OF 2012

                       IN MFA NO. 21384/2012

                       BETWEEN:

                       THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
          Digitally    PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
          signed by
          SAMREEN      DEPARTMENT,
SAMREEN   AYUB
AYUB      DESHNUR      KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.
DESHNUR   Date:
          2024.02.23
                                                                       ...APPELLANT
          16:29:57
          +0530
                       (BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, AAG AND
                        SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR HCGP)

                       AND:

                       1.   MALLAMMA W/O. SOMAPPA
                            AGE: 47 EYARS, OCC: HOUSEKEEPING,
                            R/O: VENKATAPUR,
                            TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

                       2.   B. VENKATA REDDY S/O. RAVI REDDY
                            AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: CLASS-I, CONTRACTOR,
                            R/O: H.NO. 8/2/293/2/A:71,
                              -2-
                                   NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299
                                     MFA No. 21384 of 2012
                 C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386
                   of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No.
                 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA
                                         No. 21653 of 2012


     9TH MAIN ROAD, JUBLI HILLS ROAD, HYDRABAD.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 NOTICE TO SERVED TO R2)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL, IN
APPLICATION NO. 68/2009 DATED 30.11.2010, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA NO. 21385/2012

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS PORT
AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORTDEPARTMENT,
KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.
                                               ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, AAG AND
 SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR HCGP)

AND:

1.   PARVATHAMMA @ PARVATHI W/O. DURGAPPA
     AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEKEEPING,
     R/O: VENKATAPUR,
     TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

2.   KUMARI DURGAMMA D/O. DURGAPPA
     AGE: 15 YEARS,

3.   KUMAR. VENKATESH S/O. DURGAPPA
     AGE: 16 YEARS,

4.   KUMAR. SURESH S/O. DURGAPPA
     AGE: 17 YEARS,

5.   KUMAR. HANUMATHA S/O. DURGAPPA
     AGE: 16 YEARS,

     RESPONDENT NO. 2, 3, 4, 5 ARE MINORS
                              -3-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299
                                     MFA No. 21384 of 2012
                 C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386
                   of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No.
                 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA
                                         No. 21653 of 2012


     REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN R1

     ALL ARE R/O: VENKATAPUR,
     TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

6.   SRI. B. VENKATA REDDY S/O. RAVI REDDY
     AGE: 44 YEARS,
     OCC: CLASS-I CONTRACTOR.
     R/O: II. NO. 8/2/293/2/A:71,
     9TH MAIN ROAD, JUBLI HILLS ROAD, HYDRABAD.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 R2-R5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
 NOTICE TO R6 SERVED)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL, IN
APPLICATION NO. 75/2009 DATED 30.11.2010, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA NO. 21386/2012

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.
                                                ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, AAG AND
 SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR HCGP)
AND:

1.   ANUSUYAMMA W/O. GADHILINGAPPA
     AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEKEEPING,
     R/O: VENKATAPUR,
     TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

2.   KUMAR KIRSHNAPPA S/O. GADHILINGAPPA
     AGE: 15 YEARS,
                             -4-
                                  NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299
                                     MFA No. 21384 of 2012
                 C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386
                   of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No.
                 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA
                                         No. 21653 of 2012


3.   KUMAR. PARMESH S/O. GADHILINGAPPA
     AGE: 15 YEARS,

     RESPONDENT NO. 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS
     REP. BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER R1.

4.   SRI. B. VENKATA REDDY S/O. RAVI REDDY
     AGE: 44 YEARS,
     OCC: CLASS-ICONSTRATOR,
     R/O. II NO. 8/2/293/2/A:71,
     9TH MAIN ROAD, JUBLI HILLS ROAD, HYDRABAD.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 R2-R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
 NOTICE TO R4 SERVED)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL, IN
APPLICATION NO. 69/2009 DATED 30.11.2010, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA NO. 21649/2012

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS,
PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
KOPPAL, DIST:KOPPAL
                                                 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, AAG AND
 SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR HCGP)
AND:

1.   RAGHAMMA W/O. BHARATHRAJ,
     AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEKEEPING
     R/O: VENKATAPUR,
     TQ: GANGAVATHI DIST:KOPPAL.

2.   KUMAR,ASHISHRAJAVARDHAN S/O. BHARATHRAJ,
     AGE:09 YEARS.
                             -5-
                                  NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299
                                     MFA No. 21384 of 2012
                 C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386
                   of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No.
                 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA
                                         No. 21653 of 2012


3.   KUMARI,DHANYARANI D/O. BHARATHRAJ,
     AGE:05 YEARS,

     ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VENKATAPUR,
     TQ:GANGAVATHI,DIST:KOPPAL.

4.   SRI. B. VENKATA REDDY S/O. RAVI REDDY
     AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:CLASS-I CONTRACTOR,
     R/O:II.NO.8/2/293/2/A-71,
     9TH MAIN ROAD,JUBLI HILLS, ROAD HYDRABAD.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN L NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 R2-R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
 NOTICE TO R4 SERVED)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL, IN
APPLICATION NO. 72/2009 DATED 30.11.2010, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA NO. 21651/2012

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS,
PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT,
KOPPAL, DIST:KOPPAL.
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, AAG AND
 SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR HCGP)
AND:

1.   YAMUNAMMA W/O. LATE BOVERA BHIMAPPA
     AGE:40 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEKEEPING
     R/O: VENKATAPUR, TQ:GANGAVATHI, DIST:KOPPAL.

2.   KUMARI. LALLITHAMMA D/O. LATE BOVERA BHIMAPPA
     AGE:16 YEARS.

3.   KUMAR. RAJA S/O. LATE BOVERA BHIMAPPA
     AGE:17 YEARS,
                             -6-
                                   NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299
                                     MFA No. 21384 of 2012
                 C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386
                   of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No.
                 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA
                                         No. 21653 of 2012


     R2 AND R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
     THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER R1

     ALL ARE R/O:ANEGUNDHI,
     TQ:GANGAVATHI, DIST:KOPPAL.

4.   SRI. B. VENKATA REDDY S/O. RAVI REDDY
     AGE:44 YEARS, OCC:CLASS-I CONTRACTOR,
     R/O:II.NO.8/2/293/2/A-719TH MAIN ROAD,
     JUBLI HILLS ROAD, HYDRABAD.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 R2-R3 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1; NOTICE TO R4 SERVED)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL, IN
APPLICATION NO. 152/2009 DATED 30.11.2010, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA NO. 21652/2012

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND
INLAND WATER TRANSPORTDEPARTMENT, KOPPAL.
                                                ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, AAG AND
 SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR HCGP)
AND:

1.   NASARIN W/O. MOHAMAD,
     AGED: ABOUT 40 YEARS,
     HOUSEKEEPING,
     R/O: VENKATAPUR,
     TALUK: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

2.   SMT. VAHIDA UNNISA W/O. ABDULGANI,
     AGED: ABOUT 65 YEARS,
     HOUSEKEEPING,
                              -7-
                                   NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299
                                     MFA No. 21384 of 2012
                 C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386
                   of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No.
                 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA
                                         No. 21653 of 2012


3.   KUM. MOHAMAD KARIM S/O. MOHAMAD IQBAL,
     AGED: ABOUT 9 YEARS, MINOR.

4.   KUMARI. ASMA BEGUM D/O. MOHAMAD IQBAL,
     AGED: ABOUT 6 YEARS, MINOR.

     R2, R3, R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
     THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER R1

     ALL ARE RESIDENT OF AMBLGA, TALUK: ALANDA,
     DIST:GULBARGA.

5.   SRI. B. VENKATA REDDY S/O. RAVI REDDY,
     AGED: ABOUT 44 YEARS,
     OCC: CLASS-1,CONTRACTOR,
     R/O: H.NO.8/2/293/2/A:71, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
     JUBLI HILLS ROAD,HYDERABAD.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-2;
 R3-R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
 NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL, IN
APPLICATION NO. 70/2010 DATED 30.11.2010, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

IN MFA NO. 21653/2012

BETWEEN:

THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
PUBLIC WORKS PORT AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.
                                                  ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. KESHAV REDDY, AAG AND
 SRI. PRAVEEN Y. DEVAREDDIYAVAR HCGP)
                              -8-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299
                                     MFA No. 21384 of 2012
                 C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386
                   of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No.
                 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA
                                         No. 21653 of 2012



AND:

1.   ASHABANI W/O. RASUALSAB
     AGED ABOUT: 49 YEARS,
     OCC: HOUSEKEEPING,
     R/O: VENKATAPUR,
     TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

2.   KUMARI. KAJABANNI D/O. RASULLASAB
     AGED ABOUT: 17 YEARS,

3.   KUMAR. RAJAHUSAIN S/O. RASULLASAB
     AGED ABOUT: 14 YEARS,

4.   KUMAR. SADDAM HUSAIN S/O. RASULLASAB
     AGED ABOUT: 14 YEARS,

     R2 TO R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY
     THEIR MOTHER NATURAL GUARDIAN R1.

     ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VENKATAPUR,
     TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.

5.   SRI. B. VENKATA REDDY S/O. RAVI REDDY
     AGED ABOUT: 44 YEARS, OCC: CLASS-I CONTRACTOR,
     R/O: H.NO. 8/2/293/2/A:71,
     9TH MAIN ROAD, JUBLI HILLS ROAD, HYDERBAD.
                                             ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARUN L NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
 R2-R4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R1;
 NOTICE TO R5 SERVED)

      THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, 1923,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE AWARD PASSED BY THE
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, KOPPAL, IN
APPLICATION NO. 71/2009 DATED 30.11.2010, BY ALLOWING THIS
APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

     THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                              -9-
                                     NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299
                                    MFA No. 21384 of 2012
                C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386
                  of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No.
                21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA
                                        No. 21653 of 2012


                         JUDGMENT

Heard Sri.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate

General and Sri.Praveen Y Devareddiyavar, learned High

Court Government Pleader for the appellant and Sri.Arun

Neelopant, learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

2. These appeals are directed against the

judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner

for Workmen's Compensation Act (hereinafter referred to

as 'CWC' for brevity).

3. These appeals are preferred by the Executive

Engineer, Public Works Port and Inland Water Transport

Department, Koppal challenging the judgment and award

passed by learned CWC. For convenience, they are

tabulated as under:

Claim petition Award amount Miscellaneous Number First Appeal No.

W.C. Rs.3,46,001/- 21384/2012

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299

C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386 of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No. 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA

W.C. Rs.2,64,834/- 21386/2012

W.C. Rs.3,46,001/- 21385/2012

W.C. Rs.2,54,878/- 21651/2012

W.C. Rs.2,28,510/- 21653/2012

W.C. Rs.3,00,314/- 21649/2012

W.C. Rs.2,64,834/- 21652/2012

4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

disposal of these cases are as under:

4.1 Claim petitions came to be filed by the

dependants of deceased persons in respect of a mishap

that occurred on 22.01.2009 contending that while the

deceased persons were working for construction of bridge

for Tungabhadra river. While the bridge was under

- 11 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299

C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386 of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No. 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA

construction, the bridge got collapsed and 30 persons who

were working under the bridge sustained grievous injuries

and some of them fell into the river. Some of them died

and few of them were injured.

4.2 The incident was taken note of by the Human

Rights Commission suo moto and passed an order

directing the Government to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-

and therefore, Government Order came to be issued in

pursuance of the said order and payment of Rs.5,00,000/-

is made to each of the claimants.

4.3 Even after receiving compensation in a sum of

Rs.5,00,000/-, dependants of deceased persons laid a

claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act before the

learned CWC.

4.4 Claim petitions were resisted by filing necessary

written statements.

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299

C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386 of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No. 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA

4.5 Learned CWC recorded the evidence of parties

and allowed the claim petitions as referred to supra.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the Executive

Engineer is in appeal challenging the validity of the

judgment and award passed by the learned CWC.

6. Sri.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional Advocate

General and Sri.Praveen Y Devareddiyavar, learned High

Court Government Pleader representing the appellant

contended that when once the claimants have received a

sum of Rs.5,00,000/- in pursuance of the directions issued

by the Human Rights Commission, second application for

the same incident seeking compensation would not arise

and the said aspect of the matter though urged before the

learned CWC, same has not been properly considered by

the learned CWC and sought for allowing the appeals.

7. In support of the argument put forth on behalf

of appellant, reliance is placed on the judgment of the

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299

C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386 of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No. 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna and others vs.

Tek Chand and others in SLP (C) No.5044/2019 dated

05.02.2024. Relevant portion of the said judgment is

culled out hereunder for ready reference:

"6. We find that the observations of this Court in Sebastiani Lakra (supra) distinguishing the case of Shashi Sharma (supra) clearly applies to the case in hand. It is observed that the amount of Rs.31,37,665/- (Rupees Thirty One Lakhs, Thirty Seven Thousand and Six Hundred and Sixty Five only) was paid to the dependents of the deceased- employee who are the petitioners herein under the aforesaid Rules since the said Rule was by way of compassionate assistance owing to the sudden death of the employee in harness for any reason whatsoever including as a result of a road traffic accident. This is in order to compensate the loss of the bread earner of the family who dies in harness. In the case of a motor vehicle accidents, when negligence is proved, loss of dependency is compensated for the very same reason. In our view, there cannot be a duplication in payments or a windfall owing to a misfortune. In another words, on the death of the person in harness, owing to a

- 14 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299

C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386 of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No. 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA

road traffic accident the dependents of a deceased cannot be doubly benefited as opposed to those who are dependents of a deceased who dies owing to illness or any other reason under the Rules formulated by the Haryana Government."

8. Per contra, Sri.Arun L Neelopant, learned

counsel for the claimants contended that the claimants are

very poor people and they did not make any application

before the Human Rights Commission for grant of

compensation and they have rightly approached the

learned CWC for awarding compensation for the accidental

death during the course of their employment.

9. Therefore, award of compensation made by the

learned CWC as referred to supra is just and proper.

Further, payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by the Government as

compensation in pursuance of the directions of Human

Rights Commission has got nothing to do with the rights of

the claimants in seeking appropriate compensation for the

- 15 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299

C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386 of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No. 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA

accidental death of their kith and kin and sought for

dismissal of the appeals.

10. He also pointed out that under the Workmen's

Compensation Act, the claimants are entitled to interest at

the rate of 12% per annum after 30 days of incident till

realization and therefore, they stand to gain by executing

the award as against the Government and therefore, the

appeals are to be dismissed.

11. In reply, Sri.Keshav Reddy, learned Additional

Advocate General pointed out that deceased persons were

not even employees or workmen under the Government

inasmuch as they have been employed for the construction

of a bridge as a casual labourers by the contractor and

therefore, it is the responsibility of the contractor to make

payment, if any, for the mishap. Therefore, learned CWC

did not have jurisdiction to entertain the very claim

petitions and sought for allowing the appeals.

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299

C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386 of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No. 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA

12. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court

perused the material on record meticulously.

13. On such perusal of material on record, there is

no dispute that the claimants are the dependants of

deceased Hulugappa, Gadilingappa, Duragesh, Bhover

Bhimappa, Rasool Sab, Bharatraj and Mohammad Ikbal

Patel.

14. Admittedly, the incident has been suo moto

taken cognizance by the Human Rights Commission and

registered a case and enquiry was held. After thorough

enquiry, Human Rights Commission passed an order

directing the Government to make payment of

Rs.5,00,000/- each to the dependants of the deceased

persons.

15. Needless to emphasise that the said

compensation amount was not termed as adhoc payment.

- 17 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299

C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386 of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No. 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA

Therefore, claim, if any, of the claimants is subject to

payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by the Government.

16. Assuming that the deceased persons are to be

treated as employees, they are entitled to compensation

under the Workmen's Compensation Act as is adjudged by

the learned CWC less a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- which has

already been paid by the Government.

17. In this regard, this Court gainfully relied on the

principles of law enunciated in the case of Krishna, supra.

18. Their Lordships in the said case have

categorically held that there cannot be duplication of

payment or windfall owing to a misfortune.

19. If the claimants are entitled to get any amount

more than Rs.5,00,000/- under the award, they are

entitled to execute the award.

20. With that observation, appeals need to be

allowed.

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4299

C/W MFA No. 21385 of 2012, MFA No. 21386 of 2012, MFA No. 21649 of 2012, MFA No. 21651 of 2012, MFA No. 21652 of 2012, MFA

21. Accordingly, following order is passed:

ORDER

(i) Appeals are allowed.

(ii) If the claimants are entitled to get any

amount over and above Rs.5,00,000/- as per

the award, they are entitled to execute the

award and receive the same from the

appellant.