Karnataka High Court
Chaitra W/O Siddappa Kannolli @ ... vs Muttanna And Ors on 26 June, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4283-DB
MFA No. 202482 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO.202482 OF 2019 (WC)
BETWEEN:
CHAITRA
W/O SIDDAPPA KANNOLLI @ AWATIGER
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: H.H. WORK,
R/O: HOKRANI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
NOW RESIDING AT C/O: PARAMANNA
S/O BASANAGOUDA MALAPATIL,
R/O: BUDIHAL, TQ: SHORAPUR,
DISTRICT: YADGIRI -585 201.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.SANJEEV PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.GOPALKRISHNA B.YADAV, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ AND:
DHUTTARGAON
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. MUTTANNA
KARNATAKA
S/O NIRONEPPA BIRADAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: MINAJAGI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL-586212
(OWNER OF TRUCK BEARING
REG. NO.KA-28, B-0085).
2. MANAGER (LEGAL
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
MICRO OFFICE, SAJJAN BUILDING,
1ST FLOOR VIDYA NAGAR,
TALIKOTI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA -586101
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4283-DB
MFA No. 202482 of 2019
3. MALLAMMA
W/O SHARANAPPA KANNOLLI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: HOKRANI, TQ: MUDDEBIHAL,
DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA - 586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHD. ABDUL QUAYYUM, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1 AND R3 SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF E.C ACT,
PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY MODIFYING THE AWARD
OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION AND SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, SHORAPUR,
DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED IN E.C.A.No.17/2018, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ASHOK S. KINAGI J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed challenging
the judgment and award passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and Workmen's Compensation, Commissioner, Shahapur,
(for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner')
dated 07.12.2018 in ECA No.17/2018.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking
before the Commissioner.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4283-DB
3. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal
are as under:
The petitioner and respondent No.3 are wife and
mother of deceased-Siddappa respectively. The deceased
were working as a cleaner/labour on the respondent No.1
truck bearing registration No.KA-28/B-0085 and he was
paid Rs.18,000/- per month and Rs.200/- per day as
bhata. On 13.05.2018 at about 00.15 hours, the driver of
the respondent No.1 drove the truck in a rash and
negligent manner and thereby, lost control and caused the
accident due to which the deceased-Siddappa sustained
grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The
accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the offending truck. The petitioner being the
legal representative of the deceased-Siddappa filed the
claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees
Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.35,00,000/- with
interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of
death of the deceased.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4283-DB
4. Though notice was issued to the respondents,
inspite of it, none appears for the respondents and they
were placed ex-parte. The petitioner in order to prove her
case examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked 5
documents as per Exs.P1 to P5. The respondents have not
led any oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel
for the petitioner, the Commissioner framed the points for
its consideration. On the assessment of oral and
documentary evidence, the Commissioner, answered point
No.1 in the affirmative, point No.2 partly in the affirmative
and point No.3 as per the final order, thereby the claim
petition was allowed with cost. It was ordered that
petitioner and respondent No.3 are entitled for
compensation of Rs.6,49,000/- with interest at the rate of
9% per annum from the date of petition till realization of
entire amount and directed the respondent No.2 to satisfy
the award. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the
compensation awarded by the Commissioner has filed this
Miscellaneous First Appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4283-DB
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner was working as a cleaner and earning
Rs.18,000/- per month and was getting Rs.200/- per day
as bhata. He contended that the Tribunal has taken the
income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month which is
on the lower side. The Commissioner ought to have taken
the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. He
also submits that interest awarded by the Commissioner is
on the lower side, hence, on these grounds, he prays to
allow the appeal.
7. Per contra learned counsel for respondent No.2
supported the impugned judgment and prays to dismiss
the appeal.
8. Perused the records and considered the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. This
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4283-DB
Court vide order dated 27.10.2021 framed the following
substantial questions of law for consideration:
i. Whether the learned Commissioner for Employees
Compensation was justified in taking the monthly
salary of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- while even
according to the Section 4 (1)(a) of the
Employees Compensation Act, 1923, Rs.10,000/-
should be taken as monthly wages?
ii. Whether the Commissioner for Employees
Compensation was justified in awarding the
payment of interest @ 9%, while even as per
Section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act,
1923 simple interest @ 12% was required to be
awarded?
9. These two substantial questions of law are
interlinked with each other hence, they are taken up
together for common discussion in order to avoid
repetition of facts.
10. It is not in dispute that deceased-Siddappa met
with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. It is also
not in dispute that deceased-Siddappa was working as a
cleaner-cum-labour under respondent No.1 on a truck
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4283-DB
bearing registration No.KA-28/B-0085 and further, in
order to substantiate that the accident was occurred due
to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending
vehicle, the petitioner has produced the certified copy of
the FIR marked as Ex.P1 and certified copy of the charge
sheet marked as Ex.P2 and the Ex.P3 is the letter issued
by the employer dated 17.05.2018. The Commissioner has
rightly held that, the accident was occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle
and also rightly held that there exists relationship of
employer and employee between deceased-Siddappa and
respondent No.1. The Commissioner while assessing the
notional income of the deceased has taken Rs.6,000/- per
month, the same is on the lower side. In view of the
notification issued dated 31.05.2020, wherein Sub-section
(1) of Section 4 of the Act, was amended and as per
amended provision, Rs.8,000/- per month has to be taken
as monthly income of the workman. Considering the said
notification, the Commissioner ought to have taken the
income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month, on the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4283-DB
contrary, he has taken Rs.6,000/- per month which is on
the lower side. The deceased was aged about 30 years as
on the date of accident and as per Schedule-I and Section
4 (a) of the Act, 50% of the amount has to be taken into
consideration so as to assess the compensation, under
Section 4 of the Act. The factor for working out lumpsum
equivalent to the compensation in the Act, as the age of
the deceased at the time of accident was 30 years, factor
to be considered is 207.98, if 50% of the salary deducted,
it comes to Rs.4,000/- multiplied by factor 207.98, it
comes to Rs.8,31,900/- as against Rs.6,49,400/- awarded
by the Commissioner. The petitioner is entitled for
enhanced compensation of Rs.1,82,900/-. As per Section
4A (3) of the Act, the Commissioner ought to have granted
interest at the rate of 12% per annum, whereas the
Commissioner has awarded interest at the rate of 9% per
annum which is contrary to Section 4A (3) of the Act.
Hence, in view of the above discussion, we answer
substantial questions of law in the negative. Accordingly,
we proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:4283-DB
ORDER
i. The appeal is allowed.
ii. The impugned judgment and award passed by
the Commissioner is modified.
iii. The petitioner is entitled to total
compensation of Rs.8,31,900/- as against
Rs.6,49,400/- along with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum from the date of accident
till realization of the entire amount.
iv. Rest of the judgment is maintained.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
VNR
CT;BN
