Karnataka High Court
Maharu Ram S/O Kasaha Ram Potai vs Tejpal S/O Boniram Agarwal on 12 November, 2024
Author: H.T.Narendra Prasad
Bench: H.T.Narendra Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16536-DB
MFA No. 100717 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
Digitally signed
by JAGADISH T
R
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.100717 OF 2021 (ECA)
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench BETWEEN:
1. MAHARU RAM S/O. KASAHA RAM POTAI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE WORK.
2. SATAY BAI W/O. MAHARU RAM POTAI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
BOTH ARE R/O. MANEGAON VILLAGE,
KOUDOSALEBHAT-GRAM PANCHAYAT,
POST KOYALI BEDA-494665, TQ: PANKHANJUR,
DIST: KANKERA, STATE: CHHATTISGARH.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. HARISH S. MAIGUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. TEJPAL S/O. BONIRAM AGARWAL,
AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. GOKUL BORE WELLS SERVICE, MAHALINGAPUR-
587312, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SIDDESHWAR FRONT ROAD,
VIJAYAPUR-586101, DIST: VIJAYAPURA.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. R. KUPPELUR, ADV. FOR R2;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION
BY MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY ADDL.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16536-DB
MFA No. 100717 of 2021
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MUDHOL, IN E.C.A NO.02/2020,
DATED 18.02.2021 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)
This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the
judgment and award dated 18.02.2021 passed in ECA
No.2/2020 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil
Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, (for short 'Trial Court'), whereby the
Trial Court awarded a sum of Rs.4,50,420/- as compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.
3. Brief facts of the claimants' case before the Trial
Court are as under:
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16536-DB
The claimant Nos.1 and 2 being father and mother of the
deceased respectively filed a claim petition under Section 22 of
the Workmen's Compensation Act, 19231 before the Trial Court
seeking compensation on account of death of Ramlal S/o.
Maharu Ram Potai, in the accident occurred on 25.04.2019. The
deceased was working as coolie under respondent No.1, who is
the owner of Truck bearing registration No.KA-48/6304 and
getting wages of Rs.600/- per day including bhatta. On
25.04.2019, as per the instruction of respondent No.1, the
deceased went to duty as coolie along with others on the above
said truck to dig bore-well in the lands of formers of
surrounding villages. At 9.00 a.m., when the deceased was
taking rest by the side of the truck in the land of one
Girmallappa Bandroli of Khandratti village of Gokak Taluk, at
that time, the driver of the said truck all of a sudden drove the
truck negligently towards front side and rare wheel of the truck
ran over the head of the deceased. Due to which, the deceased
sustained injuries and died on the spot.
4. The Trial Court raised necessary issues and after
considering oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim
'Act', for short
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16536-DB
petition by granting total compensation of Rs.4,50,420/- with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum after one month from
the date of accident till the date of depositing the compensation
amount in the Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the
claimants have filed this appeal before this Court.
5. Sri. Harish S. Maigur, learned counsel for the
appellants/claimants submits that the Trial Court has not
considered the evidence of PW1 i.e., the father of the deceased
and documentary evidence relied upon by the claimants in a
proper and prospective manner that prior to the accident, the
deceased was working as coolie under the employment of
respondent No.1. He further contended that the Trial Court has
committed error in considering the income of the deceased at
Rs.4,000/- per month, which is on lower side. The Trial Court
ought to have taken income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per
month. He further contended that the Trial Court ought to
have considered the policy produced at Ex.R1, which is a
comprehensive policy. Under Ex.R1- comprehensive policy,
6+1 coolies and driver are statutorily covered and hence,
question of paying extra premium does not arise. He further
contended that there was a jural relationship between the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16536-DB
deceased and owner of the vehicle. Hence, the learned counsel
prayed to allow the appeal.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-
Insurance Company vehemently contended that the Trial Court
by considering oral and documentary evidence on record has
granted fair compensation. He further contended that the Trial
Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the Insurance
Company is not liable to pay any compensation as the policy at
Ex.R1 is not covered the liability of labour or coolie.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the appeal papers, the substantial question of
law that would arises for our consideration is:
"Whether the Commissioner is justified in
fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle
though the policy produced at Ex.R1 is a
comprehensive policy and risk of coolies and driver
(6+1) are statutorily covered?"
8. In the instant case, the deceased died in the
accident that occurred on 25.04.2019 while working as coolie
under respondent No.1 who is the owner of truck. On
25.04.2019 as per the instructions of respondent No.1, the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16536-DB
deceased attended his coolie work along with others on the
above said truck to dig borewell in the lands of formers of
surrounding villages. On the same day at 9.00 a.m., when the
deceased was taking rest by the side of the truck in the land of
one Girimallappa Bandroli of Khandratti village of Gokak Taluk,
at that time, the driver of the said truck all of a sudden drove
the truck negligently towards front side and rare wheel of the
truck ran over the head of Ramlal, due to which he sustained
injuries and died on the spot. There is no dispute with regard
to employee and employer relationship between the deceased
and owner of the Truck in question.
9. The negligent act of the driver and the liability is
proved by the oral and documentary evidence of PW1, Ex.P1 to
P6, RW1 and Ex.R1. So far as liability is concerned, as on the
date of accident, the comprehensive policy was in force and as
per Ex.R1-insurance policy, it covers total 6+1 coolies and
driver and they are statutorily covered under the policy and
therefore, question of paying extra premium does not arise as
contended by the learned counsel for Insurance Company.
Therefore, finding of the Trial Court that Insurance Company is
not liable to pay compensation is not correct.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16536-DB
10. So far as income of the deceased is concerned, the
Trial Court considered the monthly income of the deceased at
Rs.4,000/-, however, as per Section 4(a) of the Act, minimum
wages is fixed at Rs.8,000/- for the relevant period. Hence, the
monthly income of the deceased is re-assessed at Rs.8,000/-.
Out of Rs.8,000/-, 50% of the monthly wages has to be
deducted. At the time of accident, deceased was aged about
21 years. So the relevant factor applicable is 222.71, as per the
Schedule IV. Thus, the claimants are entitled for compensation
as under:
50% wages of Rs.8,000/- = Rs.4,000/-
Rs.4,000/-(wages) x 222.71(Relevant factor)=Rs.8,90,840/-
11. The claimants are entitled to Rs.8,90,840/- as
compensation due to death of Ramlal as per Section 4(a) of the
Act, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
12. The claimants are also entitled Rs.10,000/- towards
funeral expenses. Thus, the claimants would be entitled to
total compensation of Rs.9,00,840/- with interest at the rate
of 12% per annum after one month from the date of accident
till date of realization.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16536-DB
13. Hence, we pass the following:
ORDER
a) The appeal filed by the claimants is allowed
in part.
b) The impugned judgment and award of the
Trial Court is modified to an extent that the
claimants are entitled for total compensation
of Rs.9,00,840/- as against Rs.4,50,420/-
awarded by the Trial Court.
c) The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum
after one month from the date of accident to
till the date of depositing of the compensation
amount.
d) It is made clear that the respondent/Insurer
shall pay and is directed to deposit entire
compensation amount with accrued interest
before the Trial Court within six weeks from
the date of receipt of certified copy of this
judgment.
e) Draw modified award accordingly.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16536-DB
f) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
judgment to the Trial Court forthwith.
g) No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
SMM/Ct-an
