Karnataka High Court
Mahadev S/O Namadev Sagar And Ors vs Ganesh S/O Madhukar Dandage And Anr on 10 March, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
MFA No.201842/2016 (WC)
Between:
1. Mahadev S/o Namadev Sagar,
Age: 57 Years, Occ: Nil,
2. Neelabai W/o Mahadev Sagar,
Age: 54 Years, Occ: Household Work,
3. Sevantu W/o Datta Sagar,
Age: 32 Years, Occ: Nil,
4. Sonali D/o Datta Sagar,
Age: 12 Years, Occ: Nil,
5. Abiti D/o Datta Sagar,
Age: 9 Years, Occ: Nil,
6. Pooja D/o Datta Sagar,
Age: 6 Years, Occ: Nil,
Appellant No.4 to 6 are Minors R/by
Their natural Mother appellant No.3.
All are R/o: Lachan Village, Tq: Indi,
Dist: Vijayapur-586 101.
... Appellants
(By Sri.Sanganabasava B.Patil, Advocate)
2
And:
1. Ganesh S/o Madhukar Dandage,
Age: 41 Years, Occ: Business,
A/P: Kondarki, Tq: Pandharpur,
Dist: Solapur, Maharastra-431011.
2. The Branch Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd.,
No.28, East Wing, 5 th Floor, Centenary Building,
M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001.
Policy No.1702792343001781
Valid From 07.10.2009 to 06.10.2010
... Respondents
(By Rahul R.Asture, Advocate for R2;
Notice to R1 is dispensed with v/o dtd.16.09.2021)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section
30(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 praying
to modify the judgment and award passed by the Court of
Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Indi, At Indi, in
E.C.A.No.13/2014 dated 31.10.2015 and be pleased to
allow the claim petition by granting the relief as prayed far
by the appellants herein in the interest of justice and
equity.
This appeal coming on for admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment and 3 award dated 31.10.2015 passed in ECA No.13/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Indi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short).
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal. Appellants are the petitioners and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the Tribunal.
3. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the deceased Datta S/o:
Mahadev Sagar aged about 27 years was working as a driver of tractor trailer bearing registration No.MH- 13/AJ-1435 under employment of respondent No.1 on monthly wages of Rs.4,500/- and bhatta of Rs.50 per day. On 08.04.2010, when the deceased was on duty on the said tractor and trailer, after unloading the sugar cane, the deceased was coming back with 4 empty trailer and said trailer's front right side tyre written statement punctured and after reforming the puncture the deceased while joining the tyre, at that time suddenly tyre was blasted, by this impact the deceased sustained serious injuries to his chest, head, hands and other parts of the body and he died on the spot. It is contended that respondent No.1 being the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2 is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The petitioners filed the claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 seeking for compensation on the account of death of deceased Datta.
4. Respondent No.1 filed written statement and filed objections admitting that the deceased was working under him as a driver and getting wages of Rs.4,500 per month and bhatta of Rs.50/- per day. It is contended that the said vehicle was involved with 5 Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and valid from 07.10.2009 to 06.10.2010. It is contended that, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are entitled for compensation and the same may be recovered from respondent No.2. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition against respondent No1.
5. Respondent No.2 filed objections denying the age, income, occupation of the deceased and contended that the petition is not maintainable as per the requirements of Section 21 and 22 of W.C.Act, 1923, not complied and notice under Section 10 of Act, has not been served upon the respondent No.2 and admitted about the issuance of policy subject to the terms and conditions. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
6
6. In order to prove their case, petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. Respondents have not adduced any oral evidence. After recording the evidence and considering the material on record, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that on 08.04.2010 the deceased Datta S/o: Mahadev was on duty as driver on Tractor No.MH-13/AJ-1435 and trailer bearing registration No.MH-13/T-4108 and on that day near APMC, Indi the trailer's front right side tyre was punctured and after reforming puncture when the deceased while joining the tyre suddenly the tyre was blasted and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot and further recorded a finding that petitioners have proved that the deceased died during the course of his employment with respondent No.1 and further held that the petitioners are entitled for compensation and consequently allowed the claim petition and 7 awarded a compensation of Rs.3,26,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of incident till realization of entire amount and further directed respondent No.2 to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of award. Being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation amount.
7. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased Datta was getting wages of Rs.4,500/- per month and bhatta of Rs.50/- per day, but the tribunal has considered the income of the deceased @ Rs.3,000/- which is on the lower side. He further submits that as per the Minimum Wages Act, 8 the tribunal ought to have taken the income of deceased at Rs.4,000/- on the contrary the tribunal has taken income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-, is on the lower side. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Insurance Company supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. He further submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Hence, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
11. The point that arise for consideration is with regard to quantum of compensation.
12. It is not in dispute that the deceased Datta sustained injuries during the course of employment 9 and died on the spot. Further it is the case of the petitioners that the deceased was under employment of respondent No.1 and was working as driver on the tractor and trailer belongs to respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 has admitted about the employment of deceased Datta under him by filing written statement and respondent No.2 has not seriously disputed about the relationship as employer and employee between the deceased Datta and respondent No.1. The petitioners have not produced any income proof to show that the deceased was getting wages of Rs.4,500/- per month and bhatta of Rs.50/- per day. In the absence of proof of income, this Court assessed the income at Rs.4,000/- as per the Minimum Wages Act. The deceased was aged 27 years as on the date of the accident, relevant factor applies to the age group of deceased is 213.57, out of Rs.4,000/-, 50% is to be deducted, which comes to 10 Rs.2,000/- and hence Rs.2,000 x 213.57 = 4,27,140/. Hence, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.4,27,140/- under the head loss of dependency. Further, the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- under the head funeral expenses.
13. Thus, the petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,42,140/- as against Rs.3,26,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
14. In view of the discussions above, the appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award dated 31.10.2015 passed in ECA No.13/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Indi is modified.
(a) The petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,42,140/- as against Rs.3,26,000/- awarded by the tribunal.
(b) The petitioners are entitled for
enhanced compensation of
11
Rs.1,16,140/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. one month from the date of accident till the date of realization of amount.
(c) Respondent No.2, Insurance
Company is directed to deposit the
enhanced compensation amount
along with interest, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr