Karnataka High Court
Sri K Ramachandra Rao vs The Divisional Controller on 11 January, 2011
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
:'§3_e1Eary.
VIIVIWUI
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT EENCEI AT DHARVVAD
DATED THIS THE 1 1TH DAY OF JANUARY, 201 1
BEFORE '"
THE HQNBLE MRJUSTICE ARAVIND
M.F.A.No.14982/2007 _ A-
C/W. MFA No.15o[M2.oo3~A~-+V.L% «
IN M.F.A.NO.1 4982/2007:
Between:
Sri. K.Ramachandra Rae,
S/0.Narayar1a Rae, Age 2'7_yea:rs,_.-----
Occ:.: Nil, R/ofiehind Tayagrima Tfempkz,
Kurubara Street, Coul Path; ' * A} A. "
8"? Ward, Hospet, Dist: Be11a"1fy.VV A
_ . Appellant
(By Sri. HanumatE_iar§dd%:,I. Advéoate)
And:
The Divisional:C§§A11trV{§i1§§f,'._ "
NEKSRTC Begllary Vljiivisiori,
Near S,V§3;:'¢:.Ci;fC1Q%, Shii"'ag;;ppa Road,
AV Respendent
{B}: 1Z§ri';.E«';hiv'a1'<;z;_m.«:é;rS. Badavvadagi} Advacate)
TEES T>;§E<'A:"'§As flied undar Sectiam 38(3) cf W0r%;men's
""K.-:':V'3:3{}i;Z1§€§1S8;§§<{}fi Am; against the éudgmem dateé 3E.G'?,2S{}?
:§_a":;éc.&_ :::~;_. 1%..-KQA '§x§s.?'83/'2Q@2 9:': £36 {£16 Sf Labazér' Gffécaz" am
* _éT§e¥::21*:1is$i0ner fer W'0:'km€n*$ Cempensatécn, Sub flivigien-1%
3:633:33/", partiy aélawing the ciaim petitian far campensatiorz
éfld seeking enhancement for compensaéien.
W2"
IN M.F.A.No.1 SO/2008:
Between:
North East Karnataka Road Transport Corpo1"at1'on,~~.. 4' t-
Bellary Division, Befiary " "
By its Divisional Controller,
Represented by its Chief Law Officer, _ '
,
(By Srifihivakumar S. Badawadagi, Aéivoeate) \ " H
And:
Sri, K.Ramacha1:1dra Rao,
S/o.Narayana Rae, Adult,' _ ,
R/0.: Behind Tayamma Temple',
Kurubara Street, K0111 Peth,... _ '
Ward N0§8, E-£ospet,--_ 1
H _. _ A Respondent
(By Sri. Hanumattjbareddy>S'a3*11ii-iaff Advocate) This 30(1) of WC Act, against the Order saga. 31'.Q_7'.:52QO'?.._::}5a_ssed in WCA No."783/2002 or:
the file of _vLa'oo"ar '0ffi-cezj and Commissioner for Workmerfis v;(3o1jnper_1;s§'at§.o:1,x ____ Division-1, Beiiary, awarding a oo:of3e'r1,sat1:o;o 'E?Vs,.77,24'?/-- with interest at 12% ;o-a. 'These apgieegéls are coming on for aémissiozz this day, the Cvgutt eé':;:re:;w* 'mass the foiiowimg:
§{§§G1\eEE2'§T 'gin -Athese two appeals order and aware passes 'of; the TCom1'nissioner for Work_men's Compensation in WCA age [$0.783/2002 dated 31.07.2007 is questioned by both insurer and eiaimant.
2. MFA No.i498:2/200'? is by the c1aimant":see_¥:ing for enhancement of compensation and MFA by the Insurer seeking for reduction 0f'e<5triper;.satiQr1'.i«_ V
3. Heard the learned adV0catesii"appea7t*.ing" 'f0r*.i.fi1e"tts parties. Sari. Hanumanthareddy appearing for the ~- eviderieeii tendered by the Doctor in the go to show that disability M §.Sb?1'$i$€§i::'.' at 45% and Comrriissiorier' error in construing the disability at 3uS%i any reasons and awarding As submits that substantial question of 'iaw.t.fd;:mu1ate'dirithe appeal memorandum weiiid arise fer ' V' L»-..__}:ensid'eratien' I $6 fie: Veatiira Srit Sbivaktzmar St Badawadagi, ':_""i'.§'4,"'&_3t':ii1i'E~t".:§;i"'2Z?;d"*J0C8sE€ agpearirzg fer the Cereeraziezz 1'E.a§I1€i:j£ "V-vWe_riri'piej%'er wetiid contend that Carnniissierier erred in ViV"'t.a4s;sessing the disability at 35% without earisideritig 'the 444$ nature of injuries sustained by the eiaimant, which was fracture of femur and Doctor himself admitted in his we-ross~ examination that he was not a competent person he was not a Orthopedic Surgeon to assess the disabiiiityef claimant and as such the assessment of Commissioner for injury in question is "not in,."_ieor1sonanee'--.. with the medical evidence and as he iseeke'.for}reducing the percentage of disabiiity~..assesseid- :."pyi"C.ommiissioner and reeomputation of compensation ..iV_io.'iyable' claimant. He would also contend 'that C--0nin1issi'0r1er"eornrnitted a serious error in hoidiing ith'e"e1iaimant was Rs.i.,661 /- on the basiscoif Act as against admission of the claimant drawing stipend of Rs.780/ » :,f'Vsiir1c:e e;;}.preiitice"tvrairiee in Appeiiant Corporation. He woi;i1;__e;i"Va£Vse_feoritend.. that Ceinrriissiorier erred in awarding i'~i"iriterest»._at the irate of 22% payable oneqrieritii after the date " A -it iei. aéeeidersti. - 1' iiairirig heard the iearned advocates appearing fer i he "parties, this fiourt is of the considered View that foiiowirig 'sizestatztiai questions of law wouid arise for i-}Qi.'}.S3'.é€'.i."8."{?iQI'£. -5- i. Whether the Commissioner was correct in holding and assessing permanent ph.yei.ea1 disability of the claimant at eensequently hoiding that to u there is 1035 of earning Cjétfiéieitjy» '.by4_'_=th-é=_:j 'Au claimant?
ii. Whether Com1n_ie3i0ner Vwast' cVe:_5r;rect: in'-V determining the i'1'>'ViL'-',{:2IIi'J.§? ofhthetltclayimant at Rs. 1 ,661 ;' amount of Rs."}'80/~«-- _.the.A/.(;:1eu'_mant and thus ' iii. twthtetne;_; 'eginrttissioner is justified in
-------- _A'vé1x&;afcEi.§lg'=£.nt_ereSt--....a.t§ the rate of 12% p.31.
-- pegfabléette.i'teif'o_r1'e-from the date of accident? Brief facts of ucaee:
6. Ttze ciezmant herein instituted a. claim petition '¥:>é:fQz'e:"-i:_he._ '$e:t1'm_issioher for Wozkmehe Compensation eeekihg '-§;:5ay:i1ej;:tA'e:=ef CO3'E'l§€3I1Sa'EiQ3f1, eentendihg that while eetitienet .§A??'e.Ve.VtreveEE§r1g in the vehieie bearieg §"€g§S'{E'5.'Ei{}E§ in the eeuree ef his $§':§§§@§§"t'i"E€E'€, the eeesi V" Vfj~-<;_e'§?1ée§te met with an aeeieeht, er: aeeeunt 0}?" which he 'V"--._si;'1stained injuries and consequently suffered permanent phyeieei disebfiity, The accident in qtgestien and the injuries
-5"
sustained by the ciaimant are not in dispute. Hence, these aspects are not deived upen in the ptesent appeals. Re~--Question No. 1:
7'. In the instant case claimant has s1_1.ffe'1=e.d' _¢ of right femur as per 'X--Ray' film EX.P~5. The saict fact is also refle<:.t_eti ease came to be produced by the elatxntattt' account of injuries sustained claimant treatment from PW~2 who has as per EX.P-<%.
PW-2 has epinect'__peV1:eef:_teége.:_"etytjtiisahiltty is 45% with equivalent capacity. Commissioner has rightly not aceeptetit. of the Doctor is reflected in the oreierganti etuetstien. The eresseexamination of 1vj'aCtt)tV.:t}ot.:tic*tref1ect that said Doctor PW-=2 is working at K/'HVES._}>t.evstj*§'te};_»._;Lt't;"'C+et1erat Medicine D€§aI"ttn€1"t?:, He also &d:"t'1t'{8 in the etesswexatntnatietz that he is not authettzeé net "e:-tfttttefi te treat the eattent whe eetee te the said "Air; Qtthepeéic Eepattmeet er in any other other than General Medicine Department. It has _"aiso been brettgttt eat in the Ct'OSS-€XaIflit':3ft§Gn of Secter by i7_ the insurer that this witness was warned by the District Judge, Beilary on earlier occasion for having _tve.n:d_e1=ed evidence, assessing the disability irispite of there competency for him to do so. It is t3f;»i.s._fact_'is-ihieh»i}iieiigh.etduh' with the Commissioner to reject the:"1eVid_ieIiiceiii'of partly. But the Commissioner wiathioigt as"si.gtning.any"'i'easons"' V whatsoever has jumped to conet1us.i"oni"that diiisabiliiy has to be assessed at 35%. He to how he has arrived at such or no sound reasons are he has assessed the disability to evidence on record and with the injuries sustained by the Vii'i.:rVes:cee'i:'i"'iiVof fracture of right femusw If egiissbiiitfg.i'"ig_..oesnstt'ued""'sté 35% to the particular limb as is dsi'ie_ i}"V}i,'_£315:"IT§éI§':%i"i~?Zti".:f3'iFC1iH}S'§€iflC€S? the szheie hedy disability i""~"Vt":&I?tZ'§.éC3'€i»._§XC€.f3fin_'.V.i'/3" 05 it nameiy };2'?rfm is esse where ~ «i..j'jves;*mgei:sstisii is payahie is WaC.Aet, the exercise that has ts he i.:§f1{§31"'il3;i€€ZZ sriiiie asraediizg eeznperssstieii is is firid eat as "ei':'e.:s»fh_ether there is stay? iess sf earning ce.§aeit}: as a resuit sf he-..TV'dissioiiity suffered by the claimant. When said exercise is i 'being detie ii': the iristazit ease the she and eriiy CG"t'1CiE..ZSi81'1 ego that can be drawn would be that claimant admits that he suffered loss of earning capacity not beyond 10% as is evident from the Wound certificate, case sheet and certificate produced at EX.P~6 and EX.?w3. above this Court is of the cori.sidered"i?iex>a='that of«'tli~'"? Commissioner in assessing the disabilitgs/;'*.at 35% is-to b.e'--~se't, aside and it has to be held li--la the 'peroe:i1tagcMWot the disability suffered by .'"c.1aim_ia'iit" s--:l;c:af1r1Aot e§:'ce'ed lO%, Accordingly, question No.1 favour of the appellant insurer;in'lM:l"A lilo. / .. V Re-«guestilon No.3 "
8. l:<1'=.the instaiit .ca;sel Commissioner has taken into considegtatioe thel"in_Voo:m.e: of the claimant at Rslfsol/»~. To a:c_i:°ive'«at said-.4fiin,ding, he has held that minimum wages pa}'a§3l:e.*-.asVv'VoV3?_:'~--.th.je'lvdate of the accident is to be taken into eonsiderlatioo fifhiée computing comoensatioml to the instant ea;sfe;"ic1.aimaot was not a pe:*ma:i.ettt employee of tee V" _t"3o:*po;ratéor:. He was only apprentice trainee and he was in ll"'-..A>»ti':"~tifiiog period. He was also admittediy paid stipend of Rs.'?'88/- pea" month, lrz the cross~eXamir°zat:%om of Fwd dated W 9 \A4 25.05.2004, ciaimant himself admits that he was being paid stipend of 123.780/»~ as such Commissioner c0mm~§ti~ed-..Va serious error to atrive at the income 01" the __-éitairidagifxtt Rs.1,661/-- resulting in perverse find§n.g,.__4Co:'nin"i's£%'jon'e:fhagK0' relied upon the judgment of High Ahmedabad in the case of Dizitsiiéoggal AC9fztrpt-lend"'Guj}czro:t"V0 State Road 'Transport .CotpprcVIViiEioit~..eA Vs; "'Ash.r;;kkumar Keshauzaz Parekh and others .2000 ACJ 221 wherein it is held as--t111der§;"VV'V' 0 0 0 ' by the learned ¢o1m_é'e£:fd}r;;he false devoid of any Cvf the Act, 1961 as is repfodéucezgdid in earlier part of the V_ judg0tmef1:.leVe:zuAes fan doubt that the apprentice eftcvgld 0?*i"u.«ve......--'3een paid by Ms empéeger period cf apprenticeship training at 5: rate :29: Eess than the p.tee¥:jf;e-teed minimum fete as may be speezfied ~~ 2§z";.%}?;e Centres: ef apprenticeship. in this cage; 0 qegjeare the: Size empfegetg apgeffarzt 0' herein, paid the werkmarz the etzpeed at a rate Zese team the prescribed mémémtm-2 rate ef wages and this argument raised by the learned eouneef fer the appeiiant fie nethtfrzg W10- but only an attempt to take the benefits of its own wrong. The workman and its dependants sought to be put to sufier"
loss. During the period of (lpp?E?nfiC»?.'.'3¢'f&1it3.' training till the day he sustained H arising out of and in t_he.__eou::?se'""cf_'V» his; employment, the workmanxhasA-!:1e'en=§atd' AA wages as stipend andaftef.aceiden:~"~t.;;§/ti the':
basis of that stipend, 'appe.llant'hr_§zLs an attempt to pay arhoantt/E of compensation. act employer which is stated',z.u{t_hin"Vthe of Article 12 of3the.Ve:Constitatton""Vef'indie; contrary to ,3.:atztte,_r"y figgavzsthonvhleavingjapart the fact that 7_z_'t rnayV'in_eVAappropn'ate prosecution of e'mp4iayer;._ be permitted to take .'vbene"itVvVo'.t?1e"sahnte to its own adzzanta e. I L J _ J 9 Stéefjz a eonteetioa is accepted then the very .pa.rpaee__'and abject of these two benevolent . §3.€*ovz2fis':Tfo':':e can very eenyenientfy be defeated tafiteddisadziantage of the benefieéatiee and " Vtatfze advantage of the employer. The {earned CO?t'E?'?'%i$Si{}fte??' fer aietfieetene Saegeeasatian has met committed any ewe? in determining the eetnpensation to be paid ta the ciatnzants taking the saiary by way sf stipend of the workman ta be the minimum wages as § 2 , IlCA11VvV prescribed on the relevant date of the designated trade. The second eonten_tia_n.t4_:'l~.,_ raised by the learned counsel fQ;i""~tflfté3l._:
appellant is deveid of any substance. V _ Re: The accident ha.s"'r*e-s.7,;li"e4d of negligence of wcrlcrnan hli'rz2sey*._an:5?' such, the claimants .a:ir_e_ notAenEitled'jlj;'V,a_ny compensation under l923~".__ l
9. In the said casE"~~«:;.t \;;.%fg;1si_ f($u.:;dA"'th_at employer was paying less than what wasA.I:ec;_u»ireVd to as specified in the contract of such it was held that apprentice sh0l1l.de;*5;'pe his employer during the period of appr_entic?e.sh:i'pt pt'1'«ali"1'1ing such stipend at a rate not less than thelprtescribed' rate as may be specified in the connect of -apprenticeship, In the instant case not held that wages that was being paid ':0 the injzired 'e«'z5;'s.Eep;ss than prescribed ménirnmn rate and it is less than pslppecilled in the eentraet sf apprenticeship. The .1 ealcelatien of wages is presided fer enées Seetien S acct, Thus, the Cemmissiener Weuld net be entitled te ll"-.._s4ubstitute his View to that of the actual amount paid to the injured or the dead to held that eenzpensatgien payable weuid
-32"
on the basis of applicability of the minimum wageseven though material available on record would go to Wages drawn was as per contract of appreI1tice~.sl'iipA,e_'}Eie1'1ce'i, principles enunciated in Gujarathv_S'i'a:te f¥'rq;iisjé'oftv--.e~ase supra would be applicable only in he/hei"epAlemplojleeis._ able to prove that actual nvages'--p;ai.d is "less prescribed rate specified in <:.ont1ia'c't and not otherwise. Hence, Commissioner referred to supra.
Sahukar, for claimant in this appeal xvoLj'ldllnot:.:l;je tohlalclts of this case. In these circumstances; this «the considered View that the Commissioner error in holding that income ism;/2.filiaimaataaai ;2§ji';'e'ei/W and it ought to have been held that.__il:.e. earning Rs,,'?'80/- as admitted 'by the l'""'ciaimar:€..__hi:i:~self'.V'in his cross examination, Accordingly, point il'$§io._,2'§oria12iaieol l'1€i"€i§'18..bO"3€ is answered partly in fayeur of laopeiiaae e3:epio§;'e:" aria against respendeae eziipiojgee in §'é,{E_§?'VA..l.'a'25e. 150/QQGS, 'fin'
-13"
Re-Question No.3:
11. In so far as grant of award of ir14'u3v1V_'<"3.$:'i~.V_;1s concerned, the said issue is no more reswintegra; in' law laid down by the Horfble ApexV.WC>0urt.'it1v'----£he""<§a::e Oriental Insurance Company Vs.v'»._M{)'hz'.§.
reported in AIR 2009 SCWV_'3f717'~v.E§ie:nCe;ji»§j1z€IfCS3t awarded by the Honble Apex case has to be awarded. by the Commissioner for '.».\,\vj,.for1<:II1E31.1':s:;¥ is hereby modified and be entitled to interest at from the date of claim petition ti11:»1.dAa4;é' of 'the rate of ILQU/2 Per annum fmm the da{éa«--_<_;j3'v. date of paymen1:/ realisation 'fv¥'E1§.C':}E€Ef§}iQ?. 3i§}'..d'.:E8,z'1i.afA["A::.::0rding1};, question N03 is answered pa1t:iy.v.Vi_%;--V.fa<2:au:f' --the claimant and part};-* in favaur af me £2. ~~i::";. "v'§.€'W 9? {ha absve discussiama, ihe ".'_"::Qri;.jg393.:23a;%i§{>n dezermiézed by {ha éismmésaéezaer rfiquéras {as he
--:T":<i;?r:'<§mput5d is as under:
60% of R3780/~ would be Rs/$68/~ Rs,4~68/w X 10 X 221.3?/EGG 3 Rs(EG;36Sg1E W14."
13. Thus, claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.10,360.11 as against a sum of Rs.,7"7,24'7/- at-az'ar;ife.e1""by the Commissioner for Workmerfis Compensation.f°
14. In View of the above discus-s.iQn7fs, theffoiiewiftg order is passed:
_ MFA No.150/2008 ig.---hAerebj5i_ aiiewed and MFA No.14982/ pa1"t1;_y1a11eLWed__to the extent of award of interestae .d1aeu}ssréd he.ifetn above. It is t1:i»E3.1Z::t,_(':"1.a1"I§.Tu3Z::'lVIV?'l"'t'uW'OU1C1 be entitled to :4tvtjtE.'jV:t§t:t'tttest;at the rate of 71/2% per :af3t'fitir}1iev5.fr0tt51.'VV'the'aeiate tfifhatnt petition till date of award 'a_tid~:at: th.e't'rate of 12% per annum from the dat'et.__'0f til1T_"_?:he date of payment/reafization j ' WhiCh€V€:1fViS earlier and same is irt substitution to the award ifiaeeed by Commissioner fer Workmerfs 3 '* _ Cn_f1t.§je,§:$--atien.
§i*t';._ Thetfi.-atneuttt if; depeett is {steered :9 he ~~tt'a:'tsmittefi to the yttriséietiertat Cemmteeiener fez' AA Werkmert'e Cempeneatéett fez" 'eetng dtebursetl in 13% 'A aeeeedartee with iaw to the eiatmant and excess amount is eretetred, to he refunded to the empteyez Corporation.
»:> No grater' as ':e eeeta Vnp*
vi) _ 13 _ Registry to draw award accordingly.
Appeal MFA 330.150/2008 having been #g111;~§;5"o{é;'eT.£1'v<;£ on merits, question of considering th;e:'--app£ié'atiG'n for stay does not survive fog conside:"a;:t'iv!)fI-.aI1d as"
such I.A.No.3/2008 is d§;»smi_$$e;.d"'.TTa;<§_it'does .3:1oi:
survive for consideration. ' V ' ' M ;
"ygwgma