Karnataka High Court
Sri. Bhandu S/O. Ramu Belgaonkar vs The Panchayat Development Officer on 22 July, 2024
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
MFA No.103757/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.103757 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BHANDU S/O. RAMU BELGAONKAR,
AGE:32 YEARS, OCC:NIL,
R/O.H.NO.59, BASAVANA GALLI,
AT POST: JAFARWADI, PIN-590010,
TQ AND DIST:BELAGAVI.
2. SHRI PARASHURAM S/O. RAMU BELGAONKAR,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O.H.NO.59, BASAVANA GALLI,
AT POST: JAFARWADI, PIN-590010,
TQ AND DIST:BELAGAVI.
3. SMT. NANDA W/O. BASAVANT SHAHAPURKAR,
AGE:34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. NANVEEN GALLI, AMBEWADI,
TQ AND DIST:BELAGAVI-591821.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI HANUMAT R.LATUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SAROJA 1. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
HANGARAKI GRAM PANCHAYAT, KADOLI,
Location: HIGH TQ AND DIST:BELAGVI, PIN-591110.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT BELAGAVI,
DIST:BELAGAVI, PIN-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI GURUKUMAR V.A., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF
THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT & AWARD DATED 17.05.2018, PASSED IN ECA
NO.12/2017, BY THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION ACT, BELAGAVI,
PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION AND ETC.,
-2-
MFA No.103757/2018
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 13.06.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, BASAVARAJA J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The claimants/appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and Order dated 17th May, 2018 passed in ECA No.12 of 2017 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act, Belagavi, (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. Brief relevant facts that lead to the filing of this appeal are that, the claimants preferred claim petition under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation of Rs.25.00 lakh with interest at the rate of 21% with penalty of 50% from the respondents for the death of their mother during and in the course of employment. It is stated in the claim petition that Laxmibai Belgaonkar, died during and in the course of employment while discharging work in Markandeya River Development as per the directions of respondents 1 and 2 under MNREGA Scheme. The said Laxmibai was aged 55 years and had registered her name in -3- MFA No.103757/2018 Gram Panchayat, Kadoli to work under MNREGA Scheme. The Gram Panchayat, Kadoli, has issued job card relating to her. She was doing coolie work as per the directions of the respondents and was getting Rs.234/- per day as wages as per the scheme. It is stated that on 10th April, 2016 the said Laxmibai had been to Markandeya River within the limits of Jafarwadi village under Kadoli Panchayat limits for removing the garbage/waste, as per the directions of Grama Panchayat. She was carrying sand in a basket on her head from the river bed to the top. The Panchayat Officers and staff were forcing her to carry heavy weight to complete the assigned work. While so doing the work forcibly, at about 12.00 noon, she suffered heart attack due to stress and strain and died at the spot. Thereafter, her body was shifted to District Hospital Belagaby where the post-mortem was conducted and a case came to be registered by Kakati Police. The respondents 1 and 2 are the employers and they were giving directions to workers for the development of Markendaya river by assigning heavy work. Respondents 1 and 2 have paid ex-gratia amount of Rs.25,000/- to meet out the funeral expenses, but have not paid any compensation in spite of making oral requests and sending legal notices. It is further contended that the petitioners have spent Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses -4- MFA No.103757/2018 and have suffered mentally and physically and their life has become miserable. It is stated that prior to incident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was getting wages of Rs.234/- per day and from that she was maintaining her family. The Petitioner No.1 is suffering with illness frequently and hence is not doing any work. The petitioner No.3 was also staying with her mother. So the deceased was maintaining all the petitioners from her income. It is stated that their mother died due to stress and strain of heavy work during and in the course of employment and hence respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. On all these grounds sought to allow the claim petition.
4. In pursuance of notice, respondents appeared through their counsel. Respondent No.1 filed statement of objection which was adopted by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has denied the entire petition averments and contended that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, i.e. Additional Secretary to Government of India, the State of Karnataka and the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Belagavi. It is further contended that the petitioners have received a sum of Rs.54,000/- which was transferred on 04th July, 2017 to the account of petitioner No.1 maintained with Canara Bank, Khade -5- MFA No.103757/2018 Bazar Branch, Belagavi having S.B. A/c No.0505101047228. Further, it is contended that under Schedule-II of National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005, the minimum entitlement is already fixed. As per Rule 26, if a person employed under a scheme dies or becomes permanently disabled by accident arising out and or in the course of employment, he/she shall be paid by the implementing agency an ex-gratia payment of Rs.25,000/- or such amount as may be notified by the Central Government and the amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased or the disabled, as the case may be. As per the said Rule, petitioners have received Rs.25,000/- on 05th December, 2016 and the same has been deposited in the account of petitioner No.1. It is also contended that the petitioners are aware that they are entitled to Rs.25,000/- in case of death or disability and are not entitled to more than that amount. In spite of that, they are claiming Rs.25.00 lakh without any basis. Prior to filing of the petition a sum of Rs.54,000/- was paid to the account of petitioner No.1. The respondents 1 and 2 are not liable to release more than Rs.25,000/- according to the Gazette passed by the Ministry of Law and Justice. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim more than the amount which has been released to the petitioners. It is further stated that the scheme was introduced by the Central -6- MFA No.103757/2018 Government for the employment of rural people. On all these grounds respondent No.1 sought to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:
1. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Smt.Laxmibai was an employee within the meaning of Section 2(dd) of Employees' Compensation Act under the respondent No.1 at the time of her death?
2. Whether the petitioners prove that deceased Laxmibai died during the course of her employment?
3. Whether the petitioners prove the age and income of the deceased Laxmibai as on the date of her death?
4. Whether the petitioners prove that they are the only legal heirs of deceased Laxmibai?
5. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, from whom and to what extent?
6. What order?
6. To prove their case, petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW1 and got marked thirteen documents as per Exhibits P1 to P13. On closure of petitioners' side evidence, respondent No.1-Panchayat Development Officer got examined himself as RW1. No documents were marked on behalf of respondents. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded -7- MFA No.103757/2018 compensation of Rs.1,32,171/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of petition till realisation. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the trial Court, the petitioners are before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. On 13th June, 2024, appeal came to be admitted to consider following substantial questions of law:
(a) Whether the Commissioner/Trial Court is justified in considering the income of the deceased at Rs.1,950/- per month?
(b) Whether the Commissioner/Trial Court is justified in awarding interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation?
8. Sri Hanumant R. Latur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioners submitted that the judgment and award passed by the trial Court insofar as it relates to facts of the case, is illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of law. The compensation awarded by the trial Court towards loss of dependency by considering the income of the appellant at Rs.1,950/- per month is on the lower side and even considering the fact that the deceased was receiving Rs.234/- per day, the -8- MFA No.103757/2018 monthly income would come to Rs.7,020/-. He further submitted that the Trial Court has not awarded any compensation towards funeral expenses. He also submitted that the interest awarded by the trial Court at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation is against the provisions of Employees Compensation Act. Learned counsel further submitted that in view of the notification issued under the Act, the trial Court ought to have considered the income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month and deducting 50% from the same towards personal and living expenses of the deceased, awarded the compensation of Rs.5,42,240/- and funeral expenses of Rs.15,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, and accordingly sought for allowing this appeal. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court reported in the case of The Managing Director V. Smt.Nirupama J. & another1.
9. As against this, learned counsel appearing for respondents submitted that the trial Court has awarded the compensation in accordance with law and facts, which does not call for interference in this appeal and hence sought for dismissal of appeal.
12021 Kant MAC 184 (Kant) -9- MFA No.103757/2018
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of appeal papers, so also, the original records, our answer to the substantial questions framed is as follows:
(a) In the negative holding that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.5,47,240/-
(b) In the negative.
11. We have carefully examined the materials placed before this Court. The Commissioner has held that petitioners have proved that deceased was an employee within the meaning of Sec.2(dd) of the Act under the respondent no.1 at the time of her death. This finding given by the Commissioner has not been questioned by the other side. There is no dispute as to the age of the deceased at the time of her death which is shown in Ex.P.2-postmortem report as 55 years.
12. With regard to the income of the deceased is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted his arguments that the Commissioner has ignored the evidence of PW1 and the Gazatte notification issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 31.05.2010 and assessed income of the deceased at the rate of Rs.1,950/- per month instead of assessing at Rs.8,000/- per month and sought for modification of the award.
- 10 -
MFA No.103757/2018
13. To substantiate his arguments, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Smt.Nirupama (supra) wherein it followed the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in the case of K.Sivaraman @ Others Vs. P. Satishkumar & Another2.
14. Bhandu s/o Ramu Belgaonkar, the petitioner no.1 who is the son of deceased has deposed that deceased had registered her name in Kadoli Gram Panchayat MNREGA scheme. The Gram Panchayat had issued job card and other documents relating to the coolie work. Accordingly, deceased was doing coolie work everyday as per the direction of the respondent. As per the said scheme, she was getting Rs.234/- per day as wage. She was also doing household work and was going for coolie work in the village whenever there was no MNREGA work and was getting Rs.300/- per day for the coolie work.
15. During the course of cross-examination PW1 has clearly admitted that deceased was working under MNREGA scheme. The Commissioner has ignored evidence of PW1 as to the income of the deceased and determined wages of the deceased at the rate of Rs.1,950/- per month, which is contrary 2 (2020) 4 SCC 594
- 11 -
MFA No.103757/2018to the evidence on record. Though the petitioners have not placed any cogent and convincing evidence to show that deceased was getting Rs.300/- per day in addition to the wages paid under the MNREGA scheme, the Commissioner ought to have considered the wages fixed under the notification dated 31.05.2010 by the Ministry of Labour and Employment. In view of this notification in exercise of the powers conferred by sub Section (1) (B) of Sec. 4 of the Act (8 of 1923), the Central Government specifies, for the purpose of sub Section (1) of the above Section with effect from 31.05.2010, Rs.8,000/- as monthly wages of the employee. The Commissioner has not taken note of this amended provision and committed grave error in assessing income of the deceased at Rs.1,950/- per month. Taking into consideration the Gazette notification dated 31.05.2010 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment Department; keeping in mind the decision relied by the learned counsel for the appellant, and also considering the evidence placed by the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that the petitioners are entitled for compensation as under:
1. Loss of dependency 5,42,240.00 (Rs.8,000/-x50/100x135.56)
2. Funeral expenses 5,000.00
3. Total 5,47,240.00 Award of Commissioner 1,32,171.00 Enhancement 4,15,069.00
- 12 -MFA No.103757/2018
16. The Commissioner has awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing claim petition, i.e., on 18.02.2017. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Commissioner ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. in view of sub-Section
(a) of Section 4A of the Act, as per which, the petitioners are entitled for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after 30 days of death of victim as contemplated under sub-Section (3) of Section 4A of the Act till its realization.
17. The Commissioner has ignored the aforesaid provision and awarded interest at 12% p.a. from the date of filing petition and not after 30 days from the date of death of the victim. Hence, we answer points (a) and (b) in the negative and hold that the petitioners are entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,47,240/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after 30 days from the date of death of the victim till its realization.
18. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions we proceed to pass the following order.
- 13 -
MFA No.103757/2018
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in part with costs.
(ii) Appellants/petitioners are entitled for total
compensation of Rs.5,47,240/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after 30 days from the date of death of the victim till its realization.
(iii) Respondents no.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners within six weeks from the date of award.
(iv) Registry to transmit original records to the Tribunal, forthwith.
(v) Draw award accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
LNN