Karnataka High Court
Divisional Manager United India ... vs Smt Sunandamma W/O Late N Manjunath on 22 September, 2010
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, B.Manohar
E IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE DATED Tms THE as? my OF SEP'i'Ei\/IBER, 2019. PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MANJUNA'rHf:: O AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICI§'1«B.1%§Ai\idHA.f2;"_ MFA.NO.9387 0152906 E(\Vci:) . BETWEEN: O 'O O Divisional Manager, ' 'a_ . United India Insurance Co., Ltc'l.._,V A Divisional Office No.8.' _ ~ CKN Chambers, 1 F1001", No.:143'/"1354. " 1" Main, Sesha:dripIi:=Tam;i _ ._ ' - Bangaiore---560 020. O _ 1} _ APPELLANT [By Sri.A.A1\I,KriS4h*n§§iswéunj;'_, Advocate) 1. O._'S1,:r_Oi.'fi.' W/oi.' Late'_fN.Manjur1ath. New aged aiaout 24 years. " " Smt.Narasamma, 1. f .. W '/ 0, Late Narayanappa, ' -Age:.A1\/Iajor. A' ' .1" * « Sgrinivasa /% S/o.Late N.Ma_n}'unath, Now aged about 2 years, Since minor represented by his natura} guardian / mother the 15$ Respondent herein.
AI} R/ at No.93, Garudachar Palya, Bangalore South Taiuk, Bangalore.
4. Senior Commercial Executive, M / s. E T A Engineering P Ltd...
No.28, Krishna Reddy colony, Domlur, I-3a_nga_1ore--560 071, _ [By Sri.T.Puttaswarny, Adv and rfiifiér and R4 served, unrepresent_'ed_)'= . 7 MFA flied U/s. 30['3{}'ifi,of"--t1*i,e'i. fact, against the Judgment dated: 30.7'.2OO5H_pas.sed_ WCA,[';F._'C;$/ CR--30/ 2004 on the fiie of the4_:Labo1f.:r Off.icer'«..'v'and~ Commissioner for Workmen's Compten-siati_o11_._u ' ._ su b--division--4, Bangalore, awarding compensationj_jofR.s.'3..(}2,490/ -- with interest at 12% p.a. * " »--
_ _ MFA haying been heard and reserved and coming on forypronounceznent ofdudgement this day, B.1\/IANOHAR J .0 ,- .d'e1iVered..,t*ne' ifoilowingz 'YsnJUDGMENT The India Insurance Company Limited being by the award dated 30-7-2005 passed in /43"
3
WCA/FC/CR-30/2004 by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-«Division-4, Bangalore filed this
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The legal representatives of the deceased'--Nllylaniunath filed a claim petition before the Comrnissi-oner'for~.W~ori:ine1a;?Sit Compensation contending that vd_eCeased_ Ewas the husband of the first claimant,V_§son:ofxthe'seVcondLclaimant and father of the 3rd claimant a Scrap folder under the first respondent! doing the work of scrap :__'-:1_of machine, the deceased fell floor and died on the spot during the coiirse The claimants contended thendpecveased aged about 32 years as on the date of death 312:1 getting a salary of Rs.3,900/- p.m. Since the has taken the policy, the second vlfrespondent. hasto compensate the claimants due to the death 'deceased and filed a claim petition seeking for it '4'V.'j-cornpensation of Rs. 5,00,000/--. J/J 4
3. in pursuance to the notice issued by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, the first respondent has not filed any objections. However, the Insurer filed objdectpiohs denying the averrnents made in the claim petition V' contended that immediately after the'"accident,_:V.taiéindginto consideration the salary drawn by the already deposited Rs. 1,651,328/~ the agreenientuentered into between them and an'd'"the said amount may be given to sought for dismissal of the c1air;':«p:.p'etitiongagainst'athe_.second respondent.
4. On the of the parties, the Commissioner'gafor Compensation framed neeessaryiisisues.
5. I the case, the first claimant examined V".;~iVherse1f as and produced the documents at Ex.P.I to Ei(:P;3 ,_and* she was crosswexamined by the second respo'ndent~Insurer. The Owner has admitted that the A'/.
deceased was working as a Scrap Folder under the__ first respondent and they were paying him a salary of -- per day.
6. The Commissioner for Workn1e;r1's 9Compeiis'atiori._p&er' considering the oral and docum'e.nta1y".eyidence7 parties, held that the deceased first respondent and the first of Rs.100/-- per day. vIt the first respondent deceased was Working under Hence, he is the Workman ltVhev.'§lI:orl§r1ieii7s'Compensation Act and also held that the the course of employment. '{'he' Policeplhazre also a case. Hence, it is clear that they the course of employment. It is also vobserved-.7 claimants have produced necessary documents to "show that they are the legal representatives ldependlants of the deceased. Ex.P.i is the death 'V.'j~wc_ertii"icate of the deceased, Ex.P.2 is the marriage invitation /5/J 6 card and Ex.P.3 is the Ration Card. In the Ration Card, names of ail the claimants have been mentioned. Henccfithe Commissioner has held that the dependants of the deceased and they" are compensation. Further, taking into7.consi.deration'- tiie'--..ag§3.iA salary of Rs.100/~ per day earii-ed 'deceased Ealso applying the relevant factor, the C:oinnii.ssionerd_has'awarded compensation of Rs.3,O2,%i:'9t§'/.2 at the rate of 12% p.a. from theedate of Further, the Commissioner __po~'oservefd that the agreement entered into" Ee"tWeen" re_s'p'ondent and the second respondent is not the claimants and they are entitled to. comp'en_sat.iC~ndasdper Section 4 of the Workmen's Cforripensatiotl aiiowed the claim petition.
7. 'flied aggrieved by the award passed by the 7 ,h*"Commissione;'., filed this filgeal. . ' '. "V ' K 7
8. Sri.A.N.Krishnaswamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as per the agreement venétered into between the Insurer and the first respo1;i'tient,...:
claimants are entitled to compensation of 2 the Commissioner cannot award }_the._giompens-ation__ Rs.3,02,490/»«, which is contrary'«.._t0 ag1<e:e'meI1_t: He further submitted that the _%by the Commissioner is contrary the Hon'ble Supreme Court and soughtiaward passed bytheCommis5§t:;i?3\lr'::,:ili:elf:
9. On the DBrig'?-.__P'L1ttaswamy, learned counsel appearing for contended that the agreement! entered V.i11lt:C%l?ClW€€n the first respondent and the in's_urerwi_s contraiy to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Whenonce Vthej:.Co.nimissioner has given a finding that the V7l._«deceased44"v(as¢Va' iworkman and the claimants are entitled for «:.'Vthe'..jieo:rnipensation as per the Workmen's Compensation Act, parties by entering into an agreement cannot deny the /£~ 3 legal entitlement of the claimants under the Act and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. We have carefully gone through the addressed by the learned counsel for the parties, award passed by the Cornmissiionerv for .g Compensation and the oral and docurn'e_nta_ry evidence of. parties.
11. It is not in dispute N.Manjunath was working under the fit?! reVsp:onde_ni::/estahl.is.hn1ent in this appeal andjon d_'is'charging the duty as a Scarp Folder: fell 43"' floor and died on the spot. The are for compensation under the a;~:Con.ipensat1on Act. The owner of the estab1ishrneerit.,:'%a.¥?id:the insurer cannot enter into a private 7he-.._,44f1egotiation and_" the lawful compensation for which the ...il'.l"¢i:3in1ants aret' entitled to under the Act. in the instant case, iownenlhimself has adrn' ted that he was paying a salary of 9 Rs.100/-- per day and the Insurer themselves have admitted that the establishment is covered under the insure§13.ce. Hence, the ciajmants are entitled to compensation;"as«' Workmen's Compensation Act and they are not private negotiation entered into between fourth respondent.
12. in the instant case, earning Rs.3,000/-- p.m. The of the salary and by appiying reley ant factor leompensation of Rs.3,02,490/- We find that there is no ._ 'the 3 award passed by the Commissioner.'e:_ * it it A it The'; further contention'; of the Iearned counsei for the 'the of interest awarded by the Conifnis-sioAne<r"'_at p.a. from the date of fiiing of the claim VV'a:-yibetition to the iaw laid down by the Hon'b1e cefirt in a judg ent reported in 2009 Am scw 10 3717 in the ease of THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V/s MOH9. NASIR AND OTHERS has [some substance. In the above said judgment, the Court has clearly held that the claimants to _ interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the of till the passing of the award and.eat__.theA'i~.at'e of 1 the date of passing of the award pass the following: A T. 'V T A C The allowed. The compensation'"atxrg;;e1e:dffV Conimissioner for Work1nen's Compensatiions V However, the claimants are entitled to. intetee'§.:'q{..Vtheltate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of ti11_the'Vp'a's"sing of the award and at the rate of }2%.'_pV§at of passing of the award ti}1 deposit. éw The amount, in deposit, if any is ordered to be sent to the Commissioner for Workmerfs Compensation, Bangalore...
.. .. 9' ., 4. mpk/~*