Bangalore District Court
Thiripurasundari vs Enviro Control Associates India Pvt Ltd on 31 May, 2024
KABC020252372019
IN THE COURT OF THE XI ADDL. SMALL CAUSES AND
ADDL. MACT., BANGALORE, (SCCH-12)
Present: Smt.Vidyalaxmi Bhat
B.A., LL.B.(Hon's)LL.M.
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM,
Court of Small Causes,
Member, MACT12, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 31st day of May 2024
ECA No.128/2019
Petitioners: Smt. Thripurasundari
W/o Late Mathivanan
Aged 58 years,
R/at No.14/2, Kamaraj Nagar,
Odaiyakulam Village, Pollachi Taluk,
Coimbatore District,
Tamilnadu State Pincode642129
(By Sri. Nagaraj.M.,Advocate)
V/s
Respondents: 1. M/s. Enviro Control Associates
(India) Private Limited
No.001, Fair Court, No.9/1, Mytle
Lane, Richmond Town,
Bangalore560025.
2. M/s. SMC Infrastructures Pvt Ltd
No.686, 16th Cross, 4th Block, HMT
Layout, Vidyaranyapura,
Bangalore560097.
(SCCH12) 2 ECA No.128/2019
3. M/s. Bangalore Water Supply &
Sewerage Board STPHebbal Valley
Division, Opposie to Nagavara Lake,
BDA Outer Ring Road,
Rep.by its Executive Engineer.
4. M/s. Future Generali India
Insurance Company Limited No.47/1,
1st Floor, 9th 'A' Main Road,
Indiranagar 1st Stage,
Defence Colony, Bangalore560038.
Also at:
M/s. Future Generali India Insurance
Company Limited
No.573, IInd Floor, 3rd Main, 2nd Block,
R.T.Nagar, Bangalore.
( R.1 By Smt.J.R.Sarvamangala,
Advocate
R.2 By Sri. M.C.Thimmaiah, Advocate
R.3 By Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, Advocate
R.4 By Sri.V.Srihari Naidu, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
This petition is filed by the petitioner U/Sec. 22 of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation of Rs.60,00,000/ with interest @ 12% p.a in respect of death of one Prabhu Ram who is the son of petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, her son by name Prabhu Ram was a civil engineering graduate and was working with 2 nd respondent since many years. The 2nd respondent SMC (SCCH12) 3 ECA No.128/2019 Infrastructures Private Limited is a Subcontractor to the 1 st respondent M/s. Enviro Control Associates (India) Pvt. Ltd. The 1st respondent herein is a registered licensed contractor and has entered into turnkey contract with the 3rd respondent M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Bard, Bangalore to execute the design and construction of 100 MLC Sewerage treatment plant at BWSSB(STP) Hebbal valley site, situated near outer Ring road, opposite to Nagarava Lake, Kariyannapalya, Bangalore city. That, on 17.06.2019, her son Mr.Prabhu Ram was engaged at the said Kariyannapalya site at about 11.am during the course of employment. Due to collapse of the construction several workers, including the son of petitioner herein sustained severe injuries. As a result of the said accident, petitioner's son Prabhu Ram died while taking treatment at Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Medical college Hospital, Bangalore. The said accident occurred due to nonsupply of required safety equipments to workers by the respondents. That respondents have not given proper instruction or training to the workers with trained professionals about handling of emergency situation. The rules and conditions envisaged in labour law has not been properly complied by the respondents. The respondent's collective negligence is the cause of accident. That on receipt of information about the said accident, the jurisdictional Amruthally Police have filed FIR in Crime No. 100/2019 dt.17.06.2019 under Section 304(A) 337, 338 R/w 34 of IPC and undertook investigation.
(SCCH12) 4 ECA No.128/2019
3. It is further stated that the body of petitioner's son was handed over the petitioner's relatives after conducting post mortem. The petitioner has lost her only son and left in lurch having lost her only earning member of the family. She is the sole dependent of deceased Prabhu Ram. She further contended that her son was earning Rs.36,000/ per month with additional perks and facilities around Rs.12,000/. He was employed at the SMC Infra LLC, Oman (middleeast country), a parent institution of 2nd respondent herein.
4. That the 1st respondent Enviro Control Associates (India) Private Limited, has filed a Miscellaneous Petition No.145/2019, as per provisions of Section 8 of Employees' Compensation Act, with the Small Causes Court (SCCH12) Bangalore and thereby has sought permission to deposit a sum of Rs.8,47,160/ towards compensation to the petitioner herein. The petitioner is not accepting and agreeing to the calculations of Rs.8,47,16/ as compensation by the respondents, which is very paltry and incorrect calculation. That on the date of death her son has completed 28 years of age and therefore eligible for the calculation as per provisions of Section 4(a) and Schedule IV of Employee's Compensation Act. The respondents are jointly responsible to pay the said claim amount. The respondent no.1 and 2 have not forwarded a report to the commissioner or to the concerned authorities informing the death of petitioner's son, in due format as per the provisions of section 10(B) (1) of the E.C. Act, similarly, as per the provisions of Section 17(A) of E.C Act, the 1st and 2nd respondent have not informed in writing to the (SCCH12) 5 ECA No.128/2019 employees about the rights envisaged in Employee's Compensation Act and both are liable to pay penalty to the petitioner herein for their acts of noncompliance of law and rules. The cause of action for this claim petition arose during June, 2019 when the petitioner's son died due to the accident during the course of his employment. On all these grounds she prayed to allow the petition.
5. After registering the case the notices were issued to the respondents and they appeared through their counsel and filed their objections separately.
The respondent no.1 in his written statement has contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. That there is no relationship of Employer and employee between the deceased Prabhu Ram and this respondent. This respondent is not the employer of deceased and the petitioner cannot take a claim against this respondent under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act. The said Prabhu Ram was employee under 2nd respondent. Therefore there is no cause of action against this respondent. The 1 st respondent herein is a registered licensed contractor and has entered into turnkey contract with the 3rd respondent M/s. Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Bard, Bangalore to execute the design and construction of 100 MLC Sewerage treatment plant at BWSSB (STP) Hebbal, Bengaluru. The 2 nd respondent (SCCH12) 6 ECA No.128/2019 SMC Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd is a Subcontractor to the 1 st respondent and 3rd respondent is a principal employer.
6. That this respondent has issued work order dated 21.09.217 to the said subcontractor 2nd respondent for execution of civil work of said Sewage Treatment plant of 3 rd respondent at Hebbal, Bangalore. On 17th June 2019 while executing the works an accident has taken place at Sewerage treatment plant at BWSSB (STP) Hebbal, BWSSB, opposite Nagawara Lake, Kariyanna Palya, outer ring road, Bangalore in the said accident. That on 17.06.2019 accident occurred and Prabhu Ram sustained injuries which resulted in his death. 2 Nd respondent has already borne the medical as well as funeral expenses of the deceased.
7. It is further stated in the written statement that the 2 nd respondent being employer is liable to deposit the required compensation as per the Act. However, this respondent being the principal contractor, under the provisions of Contract Labour Regulation and Abolition Act, 1970, without prejudice to its right, recover the same from the 2nd respondent and from the insurance company, this respondent has already deposited amount of Rs.8,47,160/ as compensation in respect of death of Prabhu Ram by filing Mis.No.145/2019 before this court. The said amount is calculated as per the provisions of ECA Act. There is no further amount due to the petitioners as the required and eligible compensation is already deposited by this respondent. This respondent has discharged his obligation. 2 Nd (SCCH12) 7 ECA No.128/2019 respondent is duly insured with respondent no.4 and insurance policy is valid from 22.09.2018 to 21.01.2019. The copy of policy is produced along with written statement. Notification of Govt. of India under ECA Act regarding monthly wages that has to be considered for calculating compensation is also produced. As such, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is put to strict proof. The negligence on part of this respondent is denied. The claim of compensation is exaggerated. On all these grounds 1 st respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. The respondent no.2 in his written statement has contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. The petition suffers from delay and latches and is defective for nonjoinder of necessary party i.e., the insurer Future General India Ins. Co. Ltd. That in view of deposit of the compensation by way of compliance with the provisions of ECA Act on 22.07.2019 1st respondent has deposited compensation by D.D.No.147204 dt.19.07.2019. He admitted that respondent no.1 has entered contract with 3rd respondent for construction of STP and he is principal contractor. He entered subcontract with this respondent and issued work order on 21.01.2017 for execution of civil work. He stated that, he has started work by engaging his own employees and Sri.Prabhu Ram was one of such employees engaged by this respondent.
(SCCH12) 8 ECA No.128/2019
9. He contended that, there is no relationship of employer and employee between Prabhu Ram and respondent no. 1 and
3. That he joined this respondent on 02.10.2017 as site engineer and as on 17.06.2019 he was working with this respondent. That petitioner is only L.R of deceased Prabhu Ram as per the records available with this respondent. That on 17.06.2019 while executing work accident took place and Prabhu Ram sustained injuires which resulted in his death. That this respondent has met medical and funeral expenses of the deceased. Amount of compensation of Rs.8,47,160/ has been deposited before this court by filing seperte Misc petition. As such, 1st respondent has discharged his burden. All the employees of this respondent had been insured with Future General India Ins. Co. and policy is valid from 22.09.2018 to 21.09.2019. The said insurance company is not impleaded as party to this case. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. Further, petitioner is not dependent on the deceased under ECA Act, but still exaggerated claims are made. Then he denied income of the deceased and contended that, petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. That Misc. petition filed depositing compensation has been closed as per order dt.16.01.2020. The compensation deposited is meager is denied. On all these grounds 2nd respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
10. The respondent no.3 in his written statement has contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be (SCCH12) 9 ECA No.128/2019 dismissed in limine. Further he contended that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased Prabhu Ram and this respondent. The petitioner cannot make a claim against this respondent under the provisions of Employees Compensation Act. The petition is defective for non joinder of necessary party i.e., the insurer. He also stated abou t the deposit of compensation before the court and prayed to dismiss the petition against him.
11. The respondent no.4 in its written statement has contended that the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable. He admitted the issuance of policy in favour of Bangalore Water Supply and Sewage Board A/C Enviro Control Associates (I) Pvt ltd and the same was valid for the period from 22.09.2018 to 21.09.2019 and admitted that this respondent is liable to indemnify the 1st respondent subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further as per the petition, deceased was working under 2nd respondent. There is no contract between 2nd respondent and 4th respondent therefore, this petition is not maintainable against 4th respondent. Accident has not taken place during the course of employment with the 1st respondent. Age and income of the deceased is disputed. This respondent also stated about the deposit of compensation and that he has satisfied amount of Rs.8,52,160/ as full and final settlement with the first respondent. Therefore, he is not a necessary party to the case. On all these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
(SCCH12) 10 ECA No.128/2019
12. On the basis of the above pleadings, my predecessorsin office have framed the following;
ISSUES
1. Whether the Petitioners prove that they are the legal representatives of the deceased Sri Prabhu Ram?
2. Whether the Petitioners prove that deceased Sri Prabhu Ram was employee under respondent no.2?
3. Whether the petitioners proves that, on 17.06.2019 at about 11.00 am her son Prabhu Ram was engaged to work at Kariyannapalya site, while executing the works at Sewage Treatment Plant, BSWWB, opposite Nagavara Lake, Kariyannapalya, outer ring road, he construction collapsed and the petitioners' son Prabhu Ram sustained injuries which and he succumbed to injuries while taking treatment in the hospital during the course of employment of deceased under the respondent no.2?
4. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?
5. What Order or Award?
13. In order to prove the above issues the petitioner got herself examined as P.W.1.Through her Ex. P1 to 9 documents are marked. On the other hand, the respondent no.2 has got examined its Project Engineer as R.W.1. Through him Ex.R1 to Ex.R.9 documents are marked. The respondent no.1 has got (SCCH12) 11 ECA No.128/2019 examined its Site Engineer as R.W.2. Through him Ex.R.10 to Ex.R.16 documents are marked. The respondent no.3 has got examined its Executive Engineer as R.W.3. Through him Ex.R.17 document is marked and closed their side evidence. Respondent no.4 has not led any evidence.
14. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the entire materials placed on record and my answers on the above issues are as follows;
ISSUE No.1 to 3 : In the Affirmative,
ISSUE No.4 : Partly in the affirmative,
ISSUE No.5 : As per final orders for the
following;
REASONS
15. ISSUE NO. 1 to 3 : Since these 3 issues are inter related and many of the facts are admitted by respondents, they are taken together for common discussion to avoid repetition of facts and reasons.
It is necessary to notice that petitioner claiming to be mother of the deceased Prabhu Ram has filed this petition under the provisions of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking compensation. Under the said Act petitioner requires to prove her relation with the deceased, employer and employee relationship with the deceased and his employer and also that the accident occurred during the course of employment. In the present case, 2nd respondent in his written statement that, as (SCCH12) 12 ECA No.128/2019 per his records petitioner is the only L.R of the deceased. In Ex.P.1 she has produced death certificate Prabhu Ram and her name is shown as mother.
16. In the cross examination of P.W.1 respondents have not suggested anything about her relationship with the deceased. As such, there is admission by 2 nd respondent and no denial of relationship by the other respondents. Hence, petitioner has proved issue No.1 in her favour that she is the L.R of the deceased Prabhu Ram.
17. Coming to 2nd issue, that whether Prabhu Ram was employee under respondent no.2. 1 st and 2nd respondents have admitted that, Prabhu Ram was employee under 2 nd respondent. 4Th respondent insurance company stated that, Prabhu Ram was not employee under respondent no.1. But, 2 nd respondent himself admitted that Prabhu Ram was employee under him. Therefore, 4th respondent's defence that petitioner has to prove relationship of the deceased with employer has been established by the petitioner. As such, petitioner has proved issue no.2 also that deceased was employee under respondent no.2.
18. Now coming to 3rd issue as to whether petitioner proves accident took place while executing the work with respondent no.2 and whether the accident was during the course of employment, it is necessary to notice that all the respondents have mentioned about the deposit of the compensation by respondent no.1 on the compensation of Rs.8,47,160/ before this court under the provisions of E.C.Act makes it clear that, (SCCH12) 13 ECA No.128/2019 accident took place during the course of employment. The same is also admitted by 1st and 2nd respondents who are principal and subcontractors respectively. Therefore, even this issue is proved by the petitioner that accident of Prabhu Ram occurred during the course of employment and he sustained injuries and died in the hospital. As such, in view of specific admission in pleadings by the respondent no.1 and 2, it is not necessary to go in detail about the oral evidence of the parties. Accordingly, this court holds Issue No. 1 to 3 in the Affirmative.
19. ISSUE NO. 4 : In view of above reasons petitioner is entitled for compensation at the hands of respondents. The dispute is relating to quantum of the compensation. Though 1 st respondent deposited Rs.8,47,160/ before the court calculating the compensation, petitioner has not accepted the same and continued with this petition. She stated that she is entitled for enhanced amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/ as her son was earning Rs.36,000/ per month as salary and perk facilities of Rs.12,000/. According to her, the amount deposited by respondent no.1 is meager and not appropriate as per the provisions of E.C. Act.
20. 2Nd respondent though admitted that, Prabhu Ram was working under him as Site Engineer has not admitted the income stated by petitioner. He has also not stated what was the monthly salary being given to Prabhu Ram while he was working. To prove the income, petitioner got examined as P.W.1 and reiterated petition averments. In her chief examination she (SCCH12) 14 ECA No.128/2019 has produced bank statement of the deceased at Ex.P.2 and his appointment letter at Ex.P.4. As per the appointment letter Prabhu Ram was appointed with 2nd respondent vide appointment letter dated 22.04.2014 and he were to work with Oman with basic salary of Rs.300/ rial Oman per month. As per the account statement he was paid salary of Rs.36,000/ on 14.05.2018, Rs.35,738/ in May 2018, Rs.56,422/ in June 2018, Rs.35,589/ in July 2018, Rs.36,080/ in August 2018, Rs.36,468/ in Sept.2018, Rs.36,962/ in Oct.2018 and similar amount is continued till May 2019. In June 2019 he was paid Rs.55,557/ as salary. 2Nd respondent has not produced any contrary document to show that the same was not the salary paid to deceased Prabhu Ram while he was working.
21. In fact in the cross examination of the PW1 while suggesting about the perks paid to deceased, a suggestion is made by 2nd respondent to PW1 in cross examination dated 06.01.2023 at page 10 that Prabhu Ram was appointed for the salary of Rs. 36,000/. it reads as under;
"2 ನ ಎದರದರರ ಕಪನಯಲಲ ರ.36,000/ ಸಬಳಕಕ ಆತನ ಕಲಸಕಕ ಸರದದ ಎಎದರ ಸರ. ಅದರ ಮಲ ಯವದ ಹಚಚ ವರ ಹಣ ಆತನಗ ಕಡತತ ರಲಲಲ ಎಎದರ ಸರ."
This suggestion of respondent No. 2 shows the salary of the deceased is indirectly admitted. There is also direct and specific admission of monthly salary by 2 nd respondent in cross examination. When representative of 2nd respondent employer appeared and got examined as R.W.1 she is cross examined by (SCCH12) 15 ECA No.128/2019 the petitioner and specific questions are asked about the income of the deceased and salary paid to him. She stated that approximately Rs.36,000/ was paid to the deceased. She admitted that Rs.35,924/ was salary in 2019 paid to Prabhu Ram. Her statement regarding the salary of the deceased reads as under;
"ಪಪ್ರಭಭುರರಾಮರವರಿಗಗೆ ಎಷಭುಷ್ಟು ಸರಾಸ್ಯಾಲರಿ ಇತಭುತ್ತು ಎಎಂಬ ಪಪ್ರಶಗೆಶ್ನೆಗಗೆ ಸರಾಸ್ಯಾಲರಿ ಸಸ್ಲಿಪ್ ಹರಾಕಿದರಾದ್ದಾರಗೆ, ಅದರಲಸ್ಲಿದಗೆ ಎಎಂದಭು ಹಗೆಹೇಳಭುತರಾತ್ತುರಗೆ. ಕಡತವನಭುಶ್ನೆ ನಗೆನಹೇಡಿ ಹಗೆಹೇಳಭುತಗೆತ್ತುಹೇನಗೆ ಎಎಂದಭು ಸರಾಕ್ಷಿಯಭು ಹಗೆಹೇಳಿದಭುದ್ದಾ, ಕಡತವನಭುಶ್ನೆ ಕಗೆನಡಲರಾಗಿ ನಗೆನಹೇಡಿ ಅದರಲಸ್ಲಿ ಸದರಿ ಸರಾಸ್ಯಾಲರಿ ಸರರ್ಟಿಫಿಕಗೆಹೇಟ್ ಇಲಸ್ಲಿ ಎಎಂದಭು ಹಗೆಹೇಳಭುತರಾತ್ತುರಗೆ ಮತಭುತ್ತು ರನ.36 ಸರಾವಿರ ಅಎಂದರಾಜಭು ಇರಬಹಭುದಭು ಎಎಂದಭು ಹಗೆಹೇಳಭುತರಾತ್ತುರಗೆ. ಪಪ್ರಭಭುರರಾಮನಿಗಗೆ ಕಗೆನನಗೆಯಲಸ್ಲಿ ಕಗೆನಡಭುತತ್ತುದದ್ದಾ ಸರಾಸ್ಯಾಲರಿಯ ಮರಾಹಿತ ನರಾಸ್ಯಾಯರಾಲಯಕಗೆಕ ಗಗೆನತರಾತ್ತುಗಬರಾರದಭು ಎಎಂದಭು ಸದರಿ ದರಾಖಲಗೆಯನಭುಶ್ನೆ ಹರಾಜರಭು ಪಡಿಸಲಸ್ಲಿ ಎಎಂದರಗೆ ಸರಿಯಲಸ್ಲಿ. ಸದರಿ ಪಪ್ರಭಭುರರಾಮನ ಸಎಂಬಳವವ ಬರಾಸ್ಯಾಎಂಕ್ ಖರಾತಗೆಗಗೆ ನಗೆಹೇರವರಾಗಿ ಜಮರಾ ಆಗಭುತತ್ತುತಭುತ್ತು. ಸರಾಕ್ಷಿಗಗೆ ನಿ.ಪ.2- ಬರಾಸ್ಯಾಎಂಕ್ ಸಗೆಷ್ಟುಹೇಟಗೆಟಎಂಟ್ ನಭುಶ್ನೆ ತಗೆನಹೇರಿಸಲರಾಗಿ ಅದರಲಸ್ಲಿ ರನ.35,924/- 2019 ನಗೆಹೇ ಇಸವಿಯ ಸಎಂಬಳ ಎಎಂದಭು ತಗೆನಹೇರಿಸಲರಾಗಿ ಹಹೌದಭು ಎಎಂದಭು ಒಪಪ್ಪಿಕಗೆನಎಂಡಿರಭುತರಾತ್ತುರಗೆ."
Since the approximate salary of the deceased is accepted and admitted by the representative of 2 nd respondent the same has to be considered to decide the monthly income of the deceased. During the course of argument, learned counsel for 2nd respondent contended that, as per the Central Govt.
(SCCH12) 16 ECA No.128/2019 Notification produced at Ex.R.8 issued by Govt. of India,
Ministry of Labour and Employment dt.31.05.2010 for the purpose of Section 4(1) the monthly wages from the date of notification is Rs.8,000/ and the same is taken for calculation to decide the compensation in respect of death. That according to 2nd respondent the same is correct calculation and no other calculation can be done. 2Nd respondent further contended that, the subsequent notification dt. 03.01.2020 produced by the petitioner in which the wages is enhanced to Rs.15,000/ is not applicable to the present case as it came into effect from 03.01.2020. Accident took place on 17.06.2019. It is necessary to note that in the present case, relying upon the notification dated 03.01.2020 will not arise because as per the said notification it comes into effect from the date of publication in the official gazatte and it has prospective effect. It cannot be made applicable to the accident took place prior to the date of notification.
22. Further, though petitioner not got examined employer of the deceased as his witness in the present case, the employer being 2nd respondent accepted and admitted the salary of the deceased in 2019 was Rs.35,924/. Though there is suggestion that 36,000/ was the salary, witness accepted and admitted Rs.35,924/ as salary paid to deceased. In the opinion of this court when such fact is established, notification of 2010 to calculate the income of Civil Engineer, skilled worker who died in 2019 cannot be considered to decide the wages. When there is no proof of income at all, then certainly the said notification (SCCH12) 17 ECA No.128/2019 can be considered. In fact as per the definition of Wages under Sec. 2 (m) "wages" includes any privilege or benefit which is capable of being estimated in money, other than a traveling allowance or the value of any traveling concession or a contribution paid by the employer of a employee towards any pension or provident fund or a sum paid to a employee to cover any special expenses entailed on him by the nature of his employment. But grant of perks to the deceased is not established by any documents in this case, though petitioner claimed that deceased had perks worth of Rs. 12,000/ hence that cannot be included in income. Hence, petitioner has established that the income of deceased at the time of his death was Rs.35,924/ per month by oral as well as documentary evidence and the same is accepted as monthly income of the deceased to calculate the compensation.
23. As per Section 4(1A) of E.C. Act where death results from the injury an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased (employee) multiplied by the relevant factor or an amount of Rs.1,20,000/ whichever is more has to be taken as amount of compensation. 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased is Rs.17,962/ and age of the deceased at the time of death was 28 years. The same age is taken for calculation even as per Ex.R.7 while depositing compensation by the respondent no.1. The relevant factor as per Schedule IV to the age group of 28 years is 211.79. Hence, the total loss of income is Rs.17,962/ X Factor 211.79 is Rs.38,04,171/ (SCCH12) 18 ECA No.128/2019
24. Further in respect of funeral expenses respondent no.1 and 2 contended that they have already paid Rs.5,00,000/on humanitarian ground. At Ex. R.4 copy of cheque for Rs.3,00,000/ dt.13.07.2019 and at Ex. R. 15 cheque of rs. 2,00,000 in the name of petitioner are produced. In cross examination of P.W.1 she pleaded ignorance of said cheque. She denied that, the said amount was in addition to the compensation which is already deposited before the court. She admitted 2nd respondent paid ambulance charges for taking dead body to Coimbatore, but pleaded ignorance of the suggestion that Rs.20,000/ was paid for funeral expenses. There is no document to show that such funeral expenses are paid to petitioner. Hence in the opinion of this court Rs.10,000/ has to be awarded as funeral expenses.
25. In respect of two cheques produced at Ex.P.4 and 15 though petitioner pleaded ignorance of those cheques. They are account payee cheques issued in the name of petitioner. Respondent no.2 contended that, out of humanity amount of Rs.5,00,000/ is paid to petitioner apart from the amount deposited before the court. The same is also in respect of death of the son of petitioner in the form of compensation. Therefore, the said amount of Rs.5,00,000/ has to be deducted in the total compensation. Further, amount deposited before the court in C.mis.No.145/2019 to the tune of Rs.8,47,160/ is also liable to be deducted from the total compensation now payable to petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to get release of the said amount on due verification of her identity. Hence, totally Rs.13,47,160/ (SCCH12) 19 ECA No.128/2019 has to be deducted from the compensation and only for the remaining amount interest has to be calculated @ 12% p.a under Section 4A (3)(a) of E.C.Act from the date of accident till the date of payment. Therefore, total quantum of compensation payable to the petitioner is as under:
Sl.No. Particulars of Heads Amount in Rs.
1. Total loss of income : 38,04,171 /
2. Funeral expenses : 10,000/
3. Total compensation : 38,14,171/ payable
4. Amount already : 8,47,160/ deposited in C.Mis.No.145/2019
5. Compensation paid by : 5,00,000/ way of two cheques Total deductions 13,47,160/ Remaining 24,57,011/ compensation payable Hence, in view of above discussion, petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,57,011/ from the hands of respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 is entitled to get indemnified from Respondent no.4 insurance company in view of valid insurance policy as on the date of accident. I answer Issue No.4 Partly in the Affirmative.
26. ISSUE NO.5 : In view of the above discussion on Issue No.1 to 6, I proceed to pass the following, ORDER (SCCH12) 20 ECA No.128/2019 The petition filed by the petitioner U/sec. 22 of the Employee's Compensation Act is hereby allowed in part with costs.
The petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,57,011/ along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of payment, in addition to the amount of Rs.8,47,160/ already deposited in C.Mis.No.145/2019 before this court.
Respondent no.1 being principal employer is liable to pay aforesaid balanc amount of compensation with interest to petitioner and he is hereby directed to deposit the balance compensation with interest within 3 months from the date of this order.
Further Respondent no.1 is entitled to get indemnified from Respondent no.4 insurance company in view of valid insurance policy as on the date of accident.
On such deposit petitioner is entitled to get release of 50% of the compensation and remaining 50% shall be kept in F.D. in her name in any Nationalized Bank of her choice for a period of 3 years and she is entitled to receive periodical interest.
Office is directed to collect the bank details of petitioner and release the 50% of amount by way of (SCCH12) 21 ECA No.128/2019 Electronic mode of payment i.e., RTGS/NEFT to the account of the petitioner.
Advocate fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/.
Draw Award Accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and computerized and printout taken by her, then corrected and pronounced in the open court on this the 31 st day of May 2024) (Smt. Vidyalaxmi Bhat) XI Addl. Small Causes Judge & ACMM, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the petitioners:
P.W.1 : Smt.Thripurasundari List of documents got marked for the petitioners:
Ex.P.1 : Death certificate of Prabhu Ram
Ex.P.2 : True copy of bank statement
Ex.P.3 : Order copy issued to Prabhu Ram by
MSC Infra LLC Company
Ex.P.4 : Engineering original degree of
Prabhu Ram
Ex.P.5 : Crematorium certificate
Ex.P.6 : Certified copy of Inquest report
Ex.P.7 : Notarized copy of Aadhaar card of
Petitioner
Ex.P.8 : FIR copy in crime No.100/2019
Ex.P.9 : Complaint
List of witnesses examined for the respondents:
R.W.1 : Shittal Kamagouda R.W.2 : Rajiv Gandhi.R R.W.3 : Bharath Kumar (SCCH12) 22 ECA No.128/2019
List of documents marked for the respondents:
Ex.R.1 : Letter of Authority
Ex.R.2 : Notarized copy of Employees
registration letter
Ex.R.3 : Notarized copy of certificate of
registration
Ex.R.4 : Acknowledgment for having issued
cheque for Rs. 3 lakhs
Ex.R.5 : Notarized copy of work order
Ex.R.6 : Policy copy of Future General India
Insurance company
Ex.R.7 : Statement of calculation
Ex.R.8 : Gazette notification of Govt. of Inida
Ex.R.9 : Notorized copy of Order copy of Mis.
No.145/2019
Ex.R.10 : Board resolution
Ex.R.11 : Notarized copy of Employee registration
Ex.R.12 : Notarized copy of certificate of
registration
Ex.R.13 : Notarized copy of contractor labour
licence
Ex.R.14 : Statement of calculation
Ex.R.15 : Acknowledgment for having issued
cheque for Rs.2 lakhs
Ex.R.16 : Certificate of Incorporation
Ex.R.17 : Original contract agreement
Ex.R.18 : Work order copy issued by BWSSB
Ex.R.19 : Terms and conditions issued by 1st
respondent
Ex.R.20 : Conditions of contract
(Smt. Vidyalaxmi Bhat)
XI Addl. Small Causes Judge
& ACMM, Bengaluru.
Digitally signed
by VIDYALAXMI
VIDYALAXMI BHAT
BHAT Date:
2024.06.06
16:19:49 +0530