Karnataka High Court
Surappa S/O Sharanappa Talawar And Anr vs Shankreppa S/O Sangappa Neela And Anr on 6 March, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
MFA No. 200002 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200002 OF 2023 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. SURAPPA,
S/O SHARANAPPA TALAWAR,
AGE. 65 YEARS,
OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. ANKALAGI,
TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586127.
2. CHANDRAWWA,
W/O SURAPPA TALAWAR
AGE. 54 YEARS,
Digitally signed
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
by VARSHA N
RASALKAR
R/O. ANKALAGI,
Location: HIGH TQ. AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586127.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. BAPUGOUDA SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. SHANKREPPA,
S/O SANGAPPA NEELA,
AGE. MAJOR,
OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. H.NO. 9-394/1,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
MFA No. 200002 of 2023
SHAHABAZAR ROAD,
NEAR CHANNAMALESHWAR TEMPLE,
PATVAR GALLI, KALABURAGI-585101.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
HANAMASHETTI BUILDING,
GURUKUL ROAD,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUDARSHAN M., ADVOCATE FOR R2:
V/O DATED 07.03.2023 NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO MODIFY
THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 27.09.2021 PASSED IN
ECA NO.22/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT THE PRINCIPAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION VIJAYAPURA AT VIJAYAPURA AND ALLOW
THIS APPEAL AND TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT
OF RS,22,82,000/- ONLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANTS
BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
MFA No. 200002 of 2023
JUDGMENT
Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the
consent of both the learned counsel, the appeal is taken
up for final disposal.
This appeal under Section 30(1) of the Employee's
Compensation Act, 1923, (for short, 'the E.C.Act') has
been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 27.09.2021 passed by the Prl.
Senior Civil Judge & Commissioner for Employee's
Compensation, Vijayapura (for short, 'the Commissioner'),
in E.C.A.No.22/2020.
2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal
briefly stated are that deceased-Sharanappa Talawar was
an employee of respondent No.1 on his tanker lorry
bearing No.KA-32/D-5614 and getting monthly wages of
Rs.20,000/- and bhatta of Rs.200/- per day. On
09.02.2020 the deceased-Sharanappa was on duty loading
the cement at Tandoor in order to proceed towards Panvel
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
(Maharashtra), on Vagdari Ribbanpalli main road, near
Shanapur Downward. At about 4:00 p.m. unfortunately
one tanker lorry's left side front tire was burst and as such
same was turned turtle on the left side and caused
accident. In the result, deceased-Sharanappa Talawar fell
down on the road and sustained fatal injuries to his head
and vital parts of the body and died on the spot. The said
incident caused during the course of the employment. The
post mortem was conducted at Govt. Hospital, Aland.
3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 22
of the E.C.Act seeking compensation for the death of the
deceased-Sharanappa along with interest.
4. On service of summons, respondent No.2
appeared through counsel and filed written statement
denying the averments made in the claim petition.
Respondent No.1 did not appear before the Commissioner
and remained absent.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the
Commissioner framed the issues and thereafter recorded
the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove the case,
examined claimant No.2 as PW-1 and got exhibited
documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Respondent No.2 got
exhibited document namely Ex.R1. The Commissioner, by
the impugned judgment and order, inter alia, held that the
deceased-Sharanappa Talawar was an employer with
respondent No.1 and he died during the course and
subsistence of his employment. Therefore, death of
deceased is clearly covered under the provisions of
E.C.Act. The Commissioner further held that the claimants
are entitled to a compensation of Rs.12,18,000/- along
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum and directed
respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount
along with interest. Being aggrieved by the judgment and
order of the Commissioner, the claimants have filed this
appeal for enhancement.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
6. Sri. Bapugouda Siddappa, the learned counsel
for the claimants has contended that at the time of the
accident the deceased was working as a driver under
respondent No.1 and he was getting monthly wages of
Rs.20,000/- per month and Rs.200/- per day as bhatta.
The monthly income of the deceased assessed by the
Commissioner as Rs.11,000/- is contrary to the provisions
of Section 4 of the E.C.Act. He further contended that,
under Section 4 of the E.C.Act Rs.15,000/- per month
fixed as maximum salary for the employee. Hence, sought
for enhancement of compensation.
7. Per contra, Sri Sudarshan M., the learned
counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company has
contended that even though claimants have claimed that
the deceased was earning Rs.20,000/- per month, but
they have not produced any documents to establish the
same. Since the claimants have failed to prove the
income, the Commissioner has rightly considered monthly
income of the deceased. He further contended that the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
date of birth of the deceased is 05.08.1993, at the time of
accident the deceased was aged about 26 years but the
Commissioner has erred in considering the factor
applicable to age group of 25 years. Therefore, he
contended that considering the age and avocation of the
deceased, the over all compensation awarded by the
Commissioner is just and reasonable. Hence, he prays for
dismissal of appeal.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
9. The matter was admitted to consider the
following substantial question of law.
"Whether the Commissioner for
Employee's Compensation was justified in
taking monthly income at Rs.11,000/- when
under Section 4 of the Employee's
Compensation Act minimum wages has been
fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month by notification
dated 03.01.2020?
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
10. It is not in dispute that deceased-Sharanappa
died while working as a driver under respondent No.1. It
is also not in dispute that he was working as an employee
under respondent No.1/employer. The specific case of the
claimants is that deceased was getting monthly wages of
Rs.20,000/- per month and bhatta of Rs.200/- per day.
Even though they have not produced any documents to
establish, in view of Section 4 of the E.C.Act and
subsequent amendment to that provision, as per
notification dated 03.01.2020 the minimum wages has
been fixed as Rs.15,000/- with effect from 03.01.2020,
the accident was occurred on 09.02.2020. Therefore, the
monthly income of the deceased has to be considered as
Rs.15,000/-.
11. The claimants have produced Ex.P6/driving
licence of the deceased. In that official document date of
birth of the deceased is 05.08.1993. But the Commissioner
has erred in considering the date of birth as mentioned in
the post mortem report. Therefore, as on the date of the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
accident the deceased was aged about 26 years and the
factor applicable to that age group is 215.28. Therefore,
compensation is re-determined as under:
Rs.15,000/- (-)less 50% = Rs.7,500/-
Rs.7,500/- x 215.28 = Rs.16,14,600/-.
12. The amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards
funeral expenses as against Rs.25,000/- awarded by the
Commissioner.
13. Thus, the claimants are entitled for enhanced
compensation in a sum of Rs.4,01,600/-. Thus, in all the
claimants are entitled for a total compensation in a sum of
Rs.16,19,600/- as against Rs.12,18,000/- granted by the
Commissioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
Accordingly, substantial question of law is answered in the
affirmative and we proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and order of the
Commissioner is modified.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:2007-DB
(iii) The Claimants are entitled for a total
compensation in a sum of Rs.16,19,600/-
as against Rs.12,18,000/- awarded by the
Commissioner with interest at 12% per
annum from the date accident till its
realization.
(iv) The respondent-Insurance Company shall
deposit the compensation amount with
accrued interest before the Commissioner
within a period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
judgment.
(v) The apportionment, deposit and
disbursement shall be made as per the
order of the Commissioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SDU
CT:BN
