Karnataka High Court
Sri.Shivu @ Shivappa S/O Nagappa ... vs Sri.Appanna S/O Parutappa Bhavi on 5 March, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4881
MFA No. 100836 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 100836 OF 2019 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVU @ SHIVAPPA
S/O. NAGAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: CLEANER,
(PRESENTLY NIL), R/O. TIMMAPUR,
TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN-587101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. D. V. PATTAR, ADV. FOR
SRI. ANAND R. KOLLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI. APPANNA S/O. PARUTAPPA BHAVI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: TRANSPORT AND
OWNER OF THE LORRY,
BEARING REG.NO.KA-29/8126,
R/O. LAXMI NAGAR,
NEAR RURAL POLICE STATION,
TQ: DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN-587101.
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
R 2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
KARNATAKA COMPANY LTD, BELGAUM, PIN-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. S. KOLIWAD, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF
EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT BAGALKOT
DATED 13.08.2018 IN E.C.A NO.13/2014 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL,
AND ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4881
MFA No. 100836 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal by the appellant/injured filed under
Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for
short, 'Act, 1923'), seeking enhancement of compensation,
being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13.08.2018
passed in ECA No.13/2014 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge
& CJM, Bagalkot (for short, 'Commissioner').
2. The facts in brief are that the, the appellant/injured
was working as a cleaner under the respondent No.1 in the
lorry bearing Registration No.KA-29/8126. It is averred that the
respondent No.1 used to pay Rs.3,000/- per month as a wages
and Rs.20/- per day as batta. It is further averred that on
01.11.2009, as per the instructions of respondent No.1, the
appellant along with the driver proceeded from Sanduru by
loading mines to Krishnapattanam and unloaded the mines. The
driver of the lorry drove the said lorry in rash and negligent
manner resultantly the appellant fell down on the ground and
sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the
appellant was shifted to Nellore hospital and took treatment.
Thereafter, he was shifted to Dr. Kanthi Nursing Home,
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4881
Bagalkot and filed claim petition for compensation. The
respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle denied the averments
made in the claim petition. However, he admitted that the
appellant is working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing
Registration No.KA-29-8126 and admitted that he used to pay
wages of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant. Hence, he filed claim
petition seeking compensation.
3. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company entered
appearance before the Commissioner and filed statement of
objections denying the age, avocation and income of the
appellant. They have specifically denied that there is no jural
relationship between the appellant and the respondent No.1
and hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Before the Commissioner the appellant examined
himself as PW1 and Dr.Vijay Kanthi as PW2 and got marked 16
documents at Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. The respondent No.1/owner of
the lorry examined himself as RW1 and official of the
respondent has been examined as RW2 and got marked two
documents as Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.
5. The Commissioner after considering the rival
contentions and evidence available on record, has awarded
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4881
total compensation of Rs.80,640/- along with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum. Being aggrieved by the same, the
appellant/injured is seeking for enhancement.
6. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for
the appellant/claimant and learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company.
7. Sri.Anand R. Kolli, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant submits that the Commissioner has committed an
error in assessing the wages of the appellant at Rs.3,000/-,
which is contrary to the evidence of the appellant and
respondent No.1 who is the owner of the vehicle. It is
submitted that the award of compensation by the
Commissioner on other heads are also on lower side requires to
be interfered.
8. Per contra, Sri.S S. Koliwad, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents support the impugned judgment
and award of the Commissioner and submits that taking note of
the evidence available on record the Commissioner has
assessed the wages and awarded compensation of Rs.80,640/-
which does not call for any enhancement of the appeal. Hence,
he seeks to dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4881
9. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material available on record.
The only substantial question that would arise for consideration
in this appeal is:
a) Whether the award of compensation by
Commissioner to the appellant is in
consonance with law and the evidence
available on record?
10. The answer to the above substantial question
is in the 'negative' for the following reasons:
11. The present appeal lies on narrow compass and
there is no dispute that the appellant/injured who was
working as a cleaner in lorry bearing Registration No.KA-
29/8126 owned by the respondent No.1. Admittedly, the
respondent No.1 who was the owner of the lorry has
admitted the jural relationship and also admitted that the
accident has occurred during the course of employment.
The Commissioner while computing the compensation has
assessed the wages of the appellant at Rs.3,000/-. This
Court taking note of the minimum wages notification fixed
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4881
under the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act,
1923, by the Central Government, assesses the wages of
the appellant at Rs.4,000/- as against Rs.3,000/-
assessed by the Commissioner. Hence, this Court re-
assesses the compensation as under:
Rs.4,000 x 60/100 x 224 x 20/100 = Rs.1,07,520/-
12. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to
compensation of Rs.1,07,520/- as against Rs.80,640/-
awarded by the learned Commissioner.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, I pass the
following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award passed
by the Commissioner to an extent that the
appellant/injured would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.1,07,520/- as against
Rs.80,640/- awarded by the Commissioner.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum
NC: 2024:KHC-D:4881
from 30 days after the date of accident till the
date of deposit.
d) On such deposit, the same shall be
released in favour of the appellant/injured.
e) Draw modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
PMP
