Pasha Bhai @ Pasha Miyan S/O Dastagir Sab ... vs The Divisional Manager, The New India ... on 7 April, 2010

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Pasha Bhai @ Pasha Miyan S/O Dastagir Sab ... vs The Divisional Manager, The New India ... on 7 April, 2010

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF  ._ 3

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBA_RGA.:_': « A  'A %

DATED THIS THE: 7TH DAY 'Apia: 2.01©%\':\\/,.: .

BEI'»'.QRE"A.V_ "  V  

THE HONBLE MR. JUsT1c'E:ug§;:A;x1. VfENL§Q'o:-.iA:;A' <§0wDA

MISC. FIRST g§PPEA1.,..%\f'O,3Q516/"2Q1(}_,{WC)
Misc. Cvli '     1  O
1. Pasha Béhiai  ij; . " 

S/0. Déistggi35'Sab.Méijakulii,  
Aged g;8"y§_:"a.r:s ' .<--;u::,« Drgver,

2. %ia:%¥1§a&a%    A
W/<'>_. P'asha_  43 years,
OCCI H0useh01dqW':in;k,}V 4' V
3. Mohd. Azaha1j,' . A ._ V "
"S:/é. Pashéi Bhai, Aged 13 years,
I V.  A « ..... .. V
. ' 2 ,Re}}rese1 1"L'~:?:d under guardianship
  Ag.-.peIjia1fi:. N0. 1

A  aré (3: Faizapura,
N§8.i'.fXbdu1 Faiz Darga,
j Biaar; : Appellants

VA   Basawaraj R. Math, AdVOC8JC€}



AND:

l. T he Divisional Manager,
The New India Insurance    A 
Company Limited, DiVisional[C¥ffice,f; '
Gulbarga.  ' A'

2. Mohd. Khamaruddin,

S/o. Mehd. Khasirn Ali, ._ _

Age: Major, Occ: Business-and 

Owner of lorry bearing No.  .    

All 13/T»-4188, R/ o'. Jl§i.'No, .71 ;"3~5i-:3'76fF.',
Maliyament,__Jhira   '  
Hyderabadlélridhrﬁla  '  C: Respondents

{By Sri. R~ l) l\£liscellaneC£11.S F'l1'~_S_V"C Appeal filed under Sec.30[1) of WC. Act 'AAV((§.§£ai]/ilist ,th.e Judgment and Award dated 30.1 1;~2o::)9 'passed »i1r:l.weA/Fe /CR. No.12/2006 on the file of the 'Labour Of-fic"e.r"'and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bidaripartly allowing the claim petition for Compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation, 'l7l1is"l'Miscellaneous First Appeal coming on for orders ' tVhisVday;.tthVe"Court delivered the following:

a delay of 47 days in filing this appeal. The eatise shown in the affidavit filed in support of A Miseeltltaneous application eonstitutes sufficient cause. 'Hence, Miscellaneous Civil No. i 51279/2010 is allowed. 'Delay of 4'? days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3:

/7':

/ 3 2, 'With the consent of learned eounselilolne. both sides, appeal is taken up for final disposals

3. One Mojiiih @ l\/fujahid, was by respondent No.2, the owner ,oi"..:'thee. V 'm'oro'rfs..yeE::iele bearing registration V ' met with an accident and §§l;'l"1il€ in the course of his emp1oyrne.ni'. -fatal injuries and died. He waséaged altioul; of accident.

His parerrtis. before the Commissioner' WorlahAen'a:.h.eo'i'npensation. The learned an enquiry, has passed the award for Dissatisfied with the quantum, < _ thi_S has « filed.

the learned counsel on both sides and pert: seci impugned Judgment /Award.

Sri. Basawaraj R. Math, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellants would contend that the X"

Commissioner has erred in reckoning the wagee of the deceased at Re.3,00C}/- per monthg He eohte:1ded.VVthat the employer/respondent No.2 did not app*eaf Commissioner, in View of which, {he 4e1a.i'mdf1:-ié /aVp;§e11ante L. d were handicapped from proving Since, the Vehicle was atteidehiedﬁodé. the deceased was ehdee weds earning wages of Rs.8,000/~ 'the contention of the learned e,oLi.:h;§eI "V;>;x'/etdges at Rs.6,000/.. p.m was of the deceased should have ht' 1520/~ per day and by not doing . has committed material error, on 2{(:eount-- of Which, the substantial question of "V"'--v.A1a\>e.j.'{vii;h 1*-egardddtofeckoning of wages of the deceased, e._'3;§i';Ses for_«he:>i:sideration. the other hand, Sri. Veeresh B. Patﬂ, the ve.V'1ee,rhed"'eounse1 appearing for the 18' respondenbinsurer .' 'ix-iopuid contend that the claimants/appellants have not tdvgofodueed any Credible proof with regard to wages of the 2 a '1.

y'/ deceased. Even for a driver ef the vehie1e_;t.heA frn::%1.>:irrni1n Wages which can be reckened ungjer the 7 per month. The Cieeeased being-AAeA.:'Ha:n-aii'."i'Z?i8__ wages cannot be more than ReT,3,GOC»',<'f"-per "Even otherwise, it was for the to hatre produced the pr00f"'uir1 thehwaées of the deceased. Since, net produced, the Commissioner-lheing;AVVteft_ﬂ::Vw*itht,t'tine" alternate, has taken at 'Rs.3,000/- per month, as the State Government undenthe Act. Since there is a dearth of evidence' in of the deceased, no case is n1a§iie'Vont in "'ap pea1 for enhancement of the award. In '"Vi_e{V tiff facts and circumstances of the ease, the én_hetant_ia1hf-qnestien of law, raised in the appeal n:e_n10ran<h:rn, does not arise for consideration ?. Undieputedly, the deceased Mejit @ Mnjahid 'Hamah' employed by the 2"" respondent' to do the 6 werk in the motor vehiele bearing 13/T4188. The said person has succ_ur11he:d: the injuries sustained in a motorvgvehdicle é:ce'ider1*E'V}s{hiE;eA in erhployment. The elaimarﬁsu areV"pserr'entssV It was for the Claimants Credible proof with regard decessed. The 2nd respondeneowner of supported the case of the» his statement or producing" the deceased much less by The self serving staterrier1°f_ofVyfhfejieleﬁrhieihts/appellants, which has not been suf3po1'f,ed corroborative evidence, is not sufﬁeierit to ar1'iVe___at a conclusion that the deceased was earhir:vg?rr2.oreVthan Rs.3,€)OO/~ per month. On account of evidence with regard to the wages of the de"c4eas..e'd,~.A«:"'the learned Commissioner has taken the assisfahee of the noﬁifieation issued by the Governrnenr Minimum Wages Asst and has rightiy reckoned the _?Vyé-'ages of the deceased at Rs.3,{f}0§O/~ per month. The E 3:;

,« NJ findings recorded by the fact finding authority ﬁnes net suffer from any infirmity, inasmuch as,_...t.i*ier'er-ifs""no emissions to consider any material evidence. vSubstan--ti9V;i«--.. question of laws raised in the:'aji§pes,i mernsrsindurn Iandf'. V urged for Consideration by the f<ij1v~$t»r1»§3 in the facts and eireumstsnees.t»of arise for consideration. Siriee th.e--eippe'a1.d0es' nsttgive rise any substantial question the appeal is incompetent .vE1:id.._the dismissed. fails and shall stands rejected. ' No eoisftsi W M $33 M"

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court