Karnataka High Court
Anjinamma vs Shivakumar V M on 12 February, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6234
MFA No. 4426 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4426 OF 2021 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
1. ANJINAMMA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
W/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA.
2. NARASIMHAMURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRIRAMAPPA @ SRIANA
MINOR REP. BY MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1.
BOTH ARE R/A KODAMADAGU VILLAGE,
PAVAGADA TALUK, TUMKUR DIST.-572 122.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI MUSHTAQ AHMED, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. SHIVAKUMAR V M,
signed by S/O MARANNA,
NANDINI R
Location: AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
High Court of R/A NO.7, VEERAPURA VILLAGE,
Karnataka
V AND P, BANK CIRCLE,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.-572 122.
2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1/82-2 IST FLOOR, NANJAMMA'S COMPLEX,
VISWANATHAPURAM P.O., THUDIYALUR,
METTUPALYAM ROAD,
COIMBATORE-641 034, AND REG.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6234
MFA No. 4426 of 2021
HEAD OFFICE G.E. PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD,
Y.E.R.W.W.D.A, PUNE-511 006,
REP. BY ITS MANAGER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SREENIVASA G H, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI MALLIKARJUN REDDY N.A., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 10.01.2018
PASSED IN ECA NO.29/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MACT, PAVAGADA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the appellants/petitioners
who are the wife and son of deceased Sriramappa. It is
the case of the appellants that the deceased Sriramappa
was working as a Driver in a lorry bearing registration
No.KA-52-2234 and while in employment and during the
course of his employment under respondent No.1 on
19.05.2011, while he was proceeding along with the
Cleaner by name Narayanaswamy, the vehicle dashed to
the roadside and Sriramappa suffered serious injuries and
NC: 2025:KHC:6234
succumbed to the said injuries. It is claimed by the
claimants that the deceased Sriramappa was earning
Rs.400/- per day along with Bata of Rs.150/- per day.
Therefore, it is their contention that he was earning more
than Rs.15,000/- per month in view of the sudden and
untimely death of Sriramappa who was aged 28 years, the
family is put to irreparable injury, hardship and financial
constraint. Hence, appellants/petitioners filed the petition
seeking compensation against the respondents who are
employer and insurer of the offending vehicle.
2. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed their statement of
objections denying the claim of the claimants including
denying the relationship of employer and employee and
sought for rejection of the petition.
3. On the basis of materials placed on record both
oral and documentary, the Commissioner awarded total
compensation of Rs.8,62,160/- with interest at 6% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of
realization of the entire award amount.
NC: 2025:KHC:6234
4. Being aggrieved by the inadequate
compensation awarded by the Commissioner, the
appellants are before this Court seeking enhancement of
compensation.
5. It is the vehement contention of learned
counsel for the appellants that the compensation awarded
by the Commissioner is on the lower side the
Commissioner has failed to take into consideration the
correct income of the deceased who was a Driver.
Deceased was earning Rs.400/- plus + Rs.150/- as bata
charges per day and thereby, the total wages that was
earned by the deceased was Rs.15,000/- per month which
has not been considered and the Commissioner has taken
the wages at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is arbitrary,
illegal and the same requires to be enhanced to
Rs.15,000/- per month. It is also vehement contention of
learned counsel for the appellants that the Commissioner
has committed a gross error in awarding interest at Rs.6%
per annum, whereas, interest ought to have been awarded
NC: 2025:KHC:6234
at 12% per annum. So also the Commissioner has
committed an error in awarding the compensation from
the date of the claim petition rather than awarding the
compensation from the date of accident. On these
grounds, learned counsel for the appellants seeks to allow
the appeal and consequently, enhance the compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
owner of the offending vehicle and learned counsel for
Insurance Company contend that the compensation
awarded by the Commissioner is just and unreasonable
commensurate to the provisions of the statute and as
there is no material placed on record by the appellants
with regard to the income of deceased, the income as
contemplated under the statute for the relevant period is
correctly taken at Rs.8,000/- per month as wages, which
does not call for interference, so also, learned counsel for
the respondents contend that the interest component
awarded is just and reasonable does not call for
NC: 2025:KHC:6234
interference. On these grounds, they seek to dismiss the
appeal.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants
and learned counsel for the respondents.
8. substantial questions of law framed by this
Court are as under:
i) Whether the commissioner has committed an
error in taking the income of the deceased at
Rs.8,000/- per month instead of taking
Rs.15,000/- as claimed?
ii) Whether the commissioner has committed an
error in applying the interest at 6% per annum
rather than taking the interest at 12%?
iii) What order?
9. The occurrence of accident on 19.05.2011,
involvement of the vehicle while the deceased was driver
of the lorry and the deceased being the employee of
respondent No.1 are established and proved by production
of Exs.P1 to P13. Therefore, there is no much of a quarrel
with regard to the relationship between respondent No.1
NC: 2025:KHC:6234
and the deceased as employer and employee. There is no
challenge made to this judgment by respondent No.1-
employer.
10. Coming to the question of wages, though the
appellants have claimed that the deceased was earning
more than Rs.15,000/- per month, no material is placed
before the Court and evidence is adduced to that effect.
Therefore, as per the notional income fixed under the
statute by virtue of a Gazette Notification dated
31.05.2010, the wages is required to be taken at
Rs.8,000/-, which is correctly taken by the Commissioner,
the age of deceased was 28 years on the date of
occurrence of accident, the relevant multiplying factor
would be 211.79, which is correctly taken in view of
Section 4(1)(a) of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923,
50% would have to be taken for calculating the
compensation amount with multiplying by the relevant
factor. Therefore, by taking the income as Rs.8,000/- per
NC: 2025:KHC:6234
month, 50% of it would be Rs.4,000/- per month
multiplied by 211.79 would be Rs.8,47,160/-.
11. The Commissioner has awarded Rs.15,000/-
towards 'funeral expenses' of the deceased. Therefore, in
all, the compensation awarded is Rs.8,62,160/-. I am in
agreement with learned counsel for the appellants that the
Commissioner has committed an error in awarding interest
at 6% per annum, whereas the interest component
requires to be awarded at 12% as contemplated under
Section 4A(3)(a). Therefore, the interest component
requires to be enhanced from 6% to 12%. The substantial
questions of law raised in the present appeal are answered
accordingly.
12. The Commissioner has awarded the
compensation from the date of the claim petition, whereas
the compensation requires to be awarded from the date of
occurrence of the accident i.e., 19.05.2011. Under the
circumstances, the present appeal requires to be allowed-
in-part. Accordingly, I pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC:6234
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed-in-part.
ii) The judgment and award passed by the
Commissioner is modified.
iii) The appellants would be entitled to total
compensation of Rs.8,62,160/- along with
interest at 12% per annum.
iv) Respondent No.1-the employer is liable to pay
the compensation and he shall pay the
compensation from the date of the occurrence
of accident i.e., 19.05.2011.
v) All other terms stipulated by the Commissioner
with regard to apportionment of compensation
between appellant Nos.1 and 2 is retained so
also with regard to release and disbursement
and fixed deposit are retained.
vi) Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
