Karnataka High Court
Sharanappa S/O Basappa Begar And Ors vs Somanagouda S/O Sidramappagouda Patil ... on 20 March, 2023
-1-
MFA No. 201816 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 201816 OF 2016 (WC-)
BETWEEN:
1. SHARANAPPA S/O BASAPPA BEGAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE
2. SMT. HULAGEMMA W/O SHARANAPPA BEGAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: H.H WORK
3. SMT. MALIKA W/O MAHANTESH BEGAR
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC: H.H WORK
4. KUMARI ANANYA D/O MAHANTESH BEGAR
AGED ABOUT 4 YEARS, OCC: NIL
APPELLANT NO.4 SINCE MINOR
REP. BY HER M/G APPELLANT NO.3
ALL ARE R/O BENAKONADANI
TQ. HUNAGUND DIST. BAGALKOT
ALSO R/O HITTANAHALLI
TQ. & DIST.VIJAYAPURA
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. RATNA N. SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SOMANAGOUDA S/O SIDRAMAPPAGOUDA PATIL
by RAMESH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
MATHAPATI
Location: High
R/O SRI KANTI BASAVESHWARA COLONY
Court of S.K.NAGAR TALIKOTI TQ.MUDDEBIHAL
Karnataka
DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586212
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
SS FRONT ROAD, VIJAYAPURA-586101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S ASPALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF EC ACT, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED-15.09.2016
PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, VIJAYAPURA IN
ECA.NO.509/2014 AND PASS AN AWARD AS CLAIMED FOR IN THE
ORIGINAL CLAIM PETITION.
-2-
MFA No. 201816 of 2016
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Seeking enhancement of compensation granted for the death of Mahantesh S/o Sharanappa Begar, in a motor vehicle accident dated 26.03.2014, appellants who are petitioners before the Commissioner for Employees Compensation (for short 'Commissioner') have filed this appeal under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act (for short 'the Act').
2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the Commissioner.
3. It is the case of the petitioners that deceased- Mahantesh was serving as the driver of tipper bearing Reg.No.KA-28/A-7098 belonging to respondent No.1. He had been to Bevoor village and returning to Gaanjiyal village near Havaragi land deceased drove his vehicle in a high speed and dashed to New Holland TT unit bearing Engine No.E38366 and Chassis No.3228180. Due to this head on collision accident, deceased-Mahantesh sustained grievous injuries to both legs, -3- MFA No. 201816 of 2016 head and chest. He was taken in ambulance to Hospital and he died during the transit. Deceased died during the course and arising out of his employment with respondent No.1 while discharging his duty as driver of tipper. As parents, wife and daughter of deceased-Mahantesh, petitioners are entitled for compensation.
4. Upon service of notice, respondents appeared and filed their written statement disputing that employment of deceased with him, his salary and batta are denied. Respondent No.2 denied there exists relationship of employer and employee between respondent No.1 and deceased and at the time of accident, deceased was on duty. It has also disputed age and income of the deceased and sought for dismissal of petition.
5. Based on the pleadings, the Commissioner framed necessary issues.
6. To prove their case, petitioner No.3 examined herself as PW-1 and Exs.P1 to 7 are marked. Respondents have not led any evidence, but got marked Exs.R1 to 3. -4- MFA No. 201816 of 2016
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Commissioner partly allowed the petition granting compensation in a sum of Rs.6,49,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. and directed respondent No.2 to pay the same.
8. During the course of argument, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the commissioner has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- pm. He further contended that as per gazette notification issued by the Government of India, the Commissioner ought to have taken income of deceased at Rs.8,000/-p.m. The alleged incident took place on 26.03.2014. Hence, sought for allowing the appeal.
9. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
i. Whether the Commissioner for
Employees Compensation, Vijayapura
has failed to consider the gazette of
India issued by Government of India
dated 31.05.2010?
ii. What order?
10. Heard arguments and perused the records. -5- MFA No. 201816 of 2016
11. Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 deals with the criteria for calculating the compensation in case of death or permanent total disability or permanent partial disability/temporary disability, etc. Section 4(1)(b) provides that the Central Government may by Notification in the official Gazette specify, for the purposes of sub-section (1), such monthly wages in relation to an employee as may be considered necessary. As per this provision, with effect from 31.05.2010 vide Order No.S.O 1258(E) dated 31.05.2010, the Central Government has specified for the purpose of sub- section (1), the monthly wages as Rs.8,000/-. Based on it, the income is required to be taken at Rs.8,000/- instead of Rs.6,000/-.
12. As per the material placed on record at the time of accident deceased was aged 30 years. Therefore, rightly the Commissioner has taken the relevant factor for calculating the compensation as 207.98. Out of the wages of Rs.8,000/- 50% is required to be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased and remaining 50% is to be taken into consideration for calculating the compensation. 50% of Rs.8,000/- comes to Rs.4,000/- and when it is multiplied by -6- MFA No. 201816 of 2016 relevant factor i.e. 207.98, the compensation works out to Rs.8,31,920/-.
i.e 4000 x 207.98 = Rs. 8,31,920/-.
13. Thus, the petitioners are entitled for compensation in a sum of Rs.8,31,920/- as against Rs.6,49,000/- granted by the Commissioner.
14. To this extent, the impugned judgment and award is liable to be modified and accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the petitioners/claimants i.e. affirmative and I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The petitioners are entitled for compensation in
a sum of Rs.8,31,920/- as against
Rs.6,49,000/- granted by the Commissioner, together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization. -7- MFA No. 201816 of 2016
(iii) Respondent/insurance company is directed to pay the compensation together with interest within six weeks from the date of this order (minus the compensation if already paid/deposited).
(iv) The Registry to send a copy of this order to the Commissioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE SDU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 87