Karnataka High Court
Rukmabai And Anr vs Ramesh And Anr on 10 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3720
MFA No. 201824 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.201824 OF 2019 (EC)
BETWEEN:
1. RUKMABAI W/O SANGAPPA PUJARI
AGE:55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD
2. SEETAWWA W/O SANGAPPA PUJARI
AGE:53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
BOTH R/O MANAGULI, TQ. BASAVAN BAGEWADI,
DIST. VIJAYAPUR.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI BIRADAR VIRANAGOUDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. RAMESH S/O SIDDAPPA CHIKMALE
by KHAJAAMEEN
L MALAGHAN AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
Location: HIGH R/O JNAWADI JANATA VASAHAT,
COURT OF BEHIND NAVNATH SOCIETY,
KARNATAKA
PUNE-411053.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
S.S.FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAHUL R. ASTURE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
V/O DTD 18.11.2022 NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3720
MFA No. 201824 of 2019
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1)OF E.C.ACT, PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND THE
COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, BASAVANA
BAGEWADI DATED 24.02.2018 IN ECA NO.13/2014.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimants for enhancement
of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for
Employees Compensation and Senior Civil Judge,
Basavana Bagewadi (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Commissioner' for short) in ECA No.13/2014, dated
24.02.2018.
Though this matter is listed for admission, with
consent of both side taken up for final disposal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their ranks before the Commissioner.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, one Sangappa
Pujari was working as labourer under respondent No.1 on
monthly wage basis, met with an accident on 27.03.2010.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3720
As a result of which, he sustained severe injuries and
succumbed to the injuries. His legal heirs filed the petition
claiming compensation.
4. Respondent No.2 has challenged the contents of
the claim petition and denied all the averments stated in
the claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.
5. From the rival contentions of both the parties,
the Commissioner had framed the necessary issues for its
determination.
6. The claimants to prove their case examined
PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 8 and closed their
evidence. Respondent No.2 examined RW.1 and got
marked one document at Ex.R1.
7. After hearing both the parties and appreciating
the evidence available on record, the Commissioner by the
impugned judgment, awarded compensation of
Rs.2,89,172.50.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3720
8. This appeal is admitted to consider the following
substantial question of law:
"Whether the Commissioner erred in not
considering the income of deceased on the basis
of amendment to the Employees Compensation
Act, 1923 of the year 2010 (w.e.f.
31.05.2010)?"
9. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for
both the side.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants submits
that in view of the subsequent event i.e. amendment to
the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter
referred to as 'E.C.Act' for short), income of the deceased
ought to have been taken as Rs.8,000/- per month by the
Commissioner. However, his income was accepted as
Rs.4,500/- per month, which is contrary to the provisions
of law.
11. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits
that the said amendment Act is not applicable to the facts
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3720
in the present case. Since accident had taken place prior
to the amendment to the said provisions of law and
moreover the claimants themselves had contended before
the Commissioner that earnings of deceased was
Rs.4,500/- per month. When their case itself that the
earnings of deceased was Rs.4,500/- per month, for the
sake of discussion, even if amended act is applicable to
them, that cannot be considered; There is no question of
deemed income on the basis of schedule. Therefore,
prayed for dismissal of appeal.
12. The submission of learned counsel for
respondent No.2 is tenable. The claimants in their petition
have submitted that deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per
month as wages. The same was accepted by the
Commissioner. During the pendency of the case before
the Commissioner, certain amendments were made to the
E.C.Act which came into force with effect from
31.05.2010. The amendment is not retrospective in effect.
Under these circumstances, the said amendment is not
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3720
applicable to the case on hand. Moreover, whatever
earnings of the deceased stated by the claimants in the
claim petition, as wages, was accepted by the
Commissioner. The Commissioner/Court cannot make out
a new case and hold that deceased was earning Rs.8,000/-
per month and not Rs.4,500/- per month as contended by
the claimants. In the case of compensation petition filed
under E.C.Act, structured formula has to be followed.
13. In view of the aforesaid decision, there is no
reason to interference with the findings of the
Commissioner. The appeal is devoid of merits. Accordingly,
I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the
Commissioner for Employees
Compensation and Senior Civil Judge at
NC: 2024:KHC-K:3720
Basavana Begewadi in ECA No.13/2014
dated 24.02.2018 is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SDU
CT:PK
