Karnataka High Court
Smt. Rajashree And Ors vs Mr. Sanganna And Anr on 11 September, 2024
Author: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N.S.Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6867
MFA No. 200128 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200128 OF 2018 (WC)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RAJASHREE
W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR @
SHEKAPPA ARAKERI,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
2. KUMAR AYYANNA
S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR ARAKERI,
AGED ABOUT 7 YEARS,
3. DEVAMMA
D/O CHANDRASHEKHAR ARAKERI,
AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS,
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR 4. SHARANAGOUDA
Location: HIGH S/O CHANDRASHEKHAR ARAKERI,
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS
KARNATAKA
APPEALLANTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE MINOR
REP/BY THEIR MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1
5. DEVAPPA S/O AYYANNA ARAKERI,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
6. SMT. DEVAKAMMA W/O DEVAPPA ARAKERI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC: NIL
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6867
MFA No. 200128 of 2018
ALL ARE R/O. KALLADEVANAHALLI,
TQ: SURPUR, DIST: YADGIRI,
NOW AT VIVEK NAGAR,
VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI KOUJALAGI C.L., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. SANGANNA S/O HANAMANTRAYA,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O. KALLADEVANAHALLI,
TQ: SHORAPUR,
DIST: YADGIRI-585201.
2. THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER,
L & T GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
1ST FLOOR, SHUBHAM BUILDING,
MAGRAT ROAD, BENGALURU-580001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADV. FOR R1;
SMT. PREETI PATIL MELKUNDI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF EC ACT, PRAYING TO
CALL FOR RECORDS AND MODIFY THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 12.10.2017 PASSED BY THE III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION,
VIJAYAPURA IN ECA NO.54/2016 AND FIXED THE LIABILITY ON
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY THE
COMPENSATION, BY ENHANCING THE COMPENSATION
AMOUNT WITH COTS.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6867
MFA No. 200128 of 2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) "Whether the impugned award of the Commissioner for Workman would be valid in the light of Ex.P.8 which does contain a signature of the licensing authority" - is the substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal.
2. The occurrence of the accident in which the husband of the first claimant, who was killed is not in dispute. The fact that the vehicle in which he was travelling i.e., the tractor was Insured is also not in dispute.
3. The Commissioner for Workman has taken the view that the driving licence produced by the claimants to indicate that the deceased did possess a driving licence could not be accepted, since the name of the licence holder was shown as Shekappa, whereas in the claim petition, it was indicated that the name of the deceased -4- NC: 2024:KHC-K:6867 MFA No. 200128 of 2018 was Chandrasekhar alias Shekappa. The Commissioner for Workman has also taken the view that the driving license Ex.P.8 did not contain the signature of the licensing authority.
4. A perusal of Ex.P.8 indicate that the driving license did contain the signature of the licensing authority at the top of the exhibit. The Commissioner for Workman has come to the wrong conclusion that there was no signature by looking only at the lower portion of Ex.P.8 which simply states 'Sd/-' i.e., signed. In fact, Ex.P.8 also contains the name of the authority who conducted the driving test.
5. It may also be pertinent to state here that the owner of the tractor also did not dispute the fact that the deceased did not possess a driving license.
6. The Insurer has also not summoned any documents to indicate that the driving license produced was fake.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6867 MFA No. 200128 of 2018
7. In the light of the above, the finding of the Commissioner for Workman that the driving license could not be accepted cannot be sustained and is accordingly set-aside.
8. As far as the difference in the names of the deceased in the license and in the claim petition is concerned, it is noticed that in the license it has been stated that the deceased name was Shekappa S/o Devappa. In the cause title, the first claimant has clearly stated that she is the wife of Chandrasekhar alias Shekappa.
9. In the light of the fact that the claimant No.1 has indicated that her husband was called as 'Chandrasekhar and also 'Shekappa', the doubt that the Commissioner for Workman has raised cannot be sustained. Consequently, the question of law is answered in favor of the claimants and the owner of the tractor and it is held that the Insurer of the tractor i.e., respondent No.2 would be liable to pay the compensation. -6-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6867 MFA No. 200128 of 2018
10. The counsel for the claimants also contends that the Tribunal has committed a mistake in assessing the income at `6,000/-, when it was the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning `15,000/- per month. The owner of the vehicle in his objections admitted that he was paying `12,000/- per month as salary. In my view, since there was no evidence produced to ascertain the actual income, it would be appropriate to adopt the notional income of `8,000/- determined by Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
11. Consequently, the claimants will be entitled to sum of `8,31,920/- (`4,000/- x 207.98) + `25,000/- for funeral expenses. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 12% from the date of the accident.
12. The apportionment, deposit and release of the enhanced compensation amount shall be made as per the ratio adopted by the Tribunal.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:6867 MFA No. 200128 of 2018
13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
(N.S.SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87