Karnataka High Court

Shri.Krishna Pandappa Pammar vs The Managing Director, Vrl on 7 March, 2024

                                            -1-
                                                          NC: 2024:KHC-D:4952
                                                   MFA No. 101674 of 2019




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

                                         BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
                MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101674 OF 2019 (ECA)

               BETWEEN:

               SHRI. KRISHNA PANDAPPA PAMMAR,
               AGE: 39 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NIL,
               R/O. KILLA ROAD, KAKATI,
               TAL & DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                                                 ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI. ASHOK A. NAIK, ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               1.   THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
                    V.R.L. LOGISTICS LIMITED, VARUR,
                    TALUKA: HUBLI AND DISTRICT-DHARWAD.
                    (OWNER OF LORRY NO-KA-25-B6898).

               2.   ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE
                    COMPANY LTD, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
                    DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RPD CROSS, TILAKWADI,
Digitally           BELAGAVI, TALUKA & DISTRICT-BELAGAVI.
signed by
JAGADISH T R
Location:                                                 ...RESPONDENTS
HIGH COURT     (BY SRI. HANUMANTHREDDY SAHUKAR, ADV. FOR R1;
OF
KARNATAKA          SRI. NAGARAJ C. KOLLOORI, ADV. FOR R2)

                    THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF
               THE EMPLOYEES COMEPNSATION ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO THE
               JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 14-08-2015, IN E.C.A NO.292/2014
               PASSED BY HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
               COMMISSIONER UNDER THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT,
               BELAGAVI, MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED AND THE COMPENSATION
               CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION MAY KINDLY BE GRANTED.

                   THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
               COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                               -2-
                                             NC: 2024:KHC-D:4952
                                        MFA No. 101674 of 2019




                         JUDGMENT

This is an appeal by the appellant/injured under Section

30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short,

'Act, 1923'), seeking for enhanced compensation being

aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.08.2015,

passed in ECA No.292/2014 by the III Addl. Senior Civil

Judge & Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act,

Belagavi (for short, 'Commissioner').

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that

the appellant was working as a driver under the employment

of respondent No.1. He was driving of truck bearing

registration No.KA-25-B-6898, at the time of accident, he

was aged about 38 years and was drawing salary of

Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.100/- bhatta per day. It is

averred that on 05.03.2009, when he was proceeding

towards the Chennai and when he reached near the Hosur,

he took turn to his vehicle at that time, he met with an

accident. Due to which, the appellant sustained grievous

injuries and he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital,

Bangalore from 05.03.2009 to 09.03.2009 and was later

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4952

shifted to Vijay Hospital, Belagavi from 10.03.2009 to

12.03.2009. It is further averred that he spent more than

Rs.50,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses

and due to accident he was unable to drive the vehicle and

he resigned from the employment on 19.11.2009. He filed

claim petition seeking for compensation.

3. The respondent No.1 entered appearance before

the Commissioner, by filing the statement of objection

denied the averments made in the claim petition. The

respondent No.2 has also filed statement of objections

denying the age, occupation and income of the appellant and

disputed that the appellant was in the employee of

respondent No.1 and the accident has taken place during the

course of employment. Hence, sought for dismissal of claim

petition.

4. During the trial, before the Commissioner the

appellant examined himself as PW1 and also examined Dr.S

R. Angadi as PW2 got marked 15 documents as Ex.P1 to

Ex.P14. The respondents have not adduced any evidence

before the Commissioner. The Commissioner allowed the

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4952

claim petition by awarding total compensation of Rs.37,071/-

per annum with interest at the rate of 12% per annum

payable after 30 days from the date of accident till deposit

into Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the present appeal

filed by the appellant/injured seeking for enhancement of the

compensation.

5. I have heard the arguments of the learned

counsel for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel for

the respondent No.2/Insurance Company.

6. Sri.Ashok A. Naik, learned counsel representing

the appellant submits that the Commissioner has committed

grave error in assessing the wage of the appellant/driver at

Rs.3,000/- per month which is on the lower side and

assessment of the wage is contrary to the evidence available

on record. He further argues that the Commissioner has

assessed the disability of the appellant at 10% which is also

contrary to the oral evidence of PW2 and medical evidence

available on record. He seeks to modify the impugned

judgment and award of compensation by enhancing the

same.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4952

7. Per contra, Sri.Hanumanthareddy Sahukar

learned counsel for the respondent No.1/owner of vehicle

and

Sri. Nagaraj C. Kollori, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2/Insurance Company, jointly submits that

the Commissioner has justified in assessing the

compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellant and

the same does not call for any enhancement. Hence, they

pray to dismiss the appeal.

8. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

for the appellant/injured and learned counsel for the

respondents. Perused the material available on record. The

only substantial question that would arise for consideration

in this appeal is:

a) Whether the Commissioner has justified in assessing the disability and awarding compensation of Rs.37,071/- per annum?

9. The aforesaid substantial question of law is

answered in favour of the appellant for the following reason.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4952

10. The parties to the proceeding do not dispute that on

05.03.2009, the appellant was proceeding to Chennai during

the course of employment met with an accident and suffered

grievous injuries. It is also not in dispute that he was initially

admitted at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bangalore and taken

treatment for the injuries suffered by him in the road

accident. The evidence of PW2, Wound Certificate at Ex.P2

and disability certificate at Ex.P9 indicate that the appellant

has sustained grievous injuries i.e., fracture to 6th, 7th, 8th,

9th and 10th ribs, and there is a fracture on right shoulder

joint. PW2 based on the aforesaid medical documents has

assessed the disability at 25% to the right shoulder and 35%

to the whole body. Taking note of the evidence, the

Commissioner has assessed the disability at 10% to the

whole body for the purpose of determination and

compensation by assessing the income of the appellant at

Rs.3,000/- per month.

11. This Court after reanalyzing the oral testimony of

PW2 and taking note of the injuries suffered by the appellant

is of the considered view that, it would be just and

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4952

appropriate to assess the disability at 20% to the whole body

for the purpose of determination of compensation. The

Commissioner has committed an error in assessing the

income of the appellant/injured at Rs.3,000/- per month.

This Court taking note of the notification issued by the

Central Government under the provisions of law assessed the

income of the appellant/injured at Rs.4,000/- per month.

Hence, this Court re-assesses the compensation as under:

Rs.4,000 x 60/100 x 20/100 x 205.95 = Rs.98,856/-

12. Thus, the claimant would be entitled to

compensation of Rs.98,856/- as against Rs.37,071/-

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

NC: 2024:KHC-D:4952

to total compensation of Rs.98,856/- as

against Rs.37,071/- awarded by the

Commissioner.

c) The enhanced compensation amount

shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per

annum from 30 days after the date of

accident till the date of deposit.