Karnataka High Court
M/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd., vs Sri. S. Raghu S/O Shankrayya, & Anr on 21 January, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2014
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE
MFA NO.31542 OF 2012 (WC)
C/W
MFA NOs.31541, 31543, 31545,
31540 AND 31544 OF 2012 (WC)
MFA NO.31542 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur, Now represented by its
Asst. Manager,
Regional Office, Hubli.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Sumitra H., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Bheemanna
S/o Honnurappa,
Ex. Hamali, Age: 24 years,
R/o Purtipli village,
Tq. & Dist. Raichur - 584 101.
2. Sri S. Azmat Khan
S/o Ijad Khan,
Lorry Owner, R/o 24/S.T.Estate,
2
Zenda Katta, Cowl Bazar,
Bellary - 583 101.
... Respondents
(Sri Prakash Yeli, Advocate for R-1;
Sri V.M. Biradar, Advocate for R2)
This appeal is filed U/S 30(1) of W.C. Act
against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2012
passed in LOB/WCA/CR/No.453/2008 on the file of the
Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Raichur, partly allowing the claim
petition and awarding compensation of Rs.11,72,606/-
with interest at 12% p.a.
MFA NO.31541 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur, Now represented by its
Asst. Manager, Regional Office, Hubli.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Sumitra H., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Manjunath
S/o Ganganna,
Ex. Cleaner, Age: 25 years,
R/o Purtipli village,
Tq. & Dist. Raichur - 584 101.
2. Sri S. Azmat Khan
S/o Ijad Khan,
Lorry Owner,
R/o 24/S.T.Estate,
3
Zenda Katta, Cowl Bazar,
Bellary - 583 101.
... Respondents
(Sri Prakash Yeli, Advocate for R-1;
Sri V.M. Biradar, Advocate for R2)
This appeal is filed U/S 30(1) of W.C. Act
against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2012
passed in WCA/CR/No.452/2008 on the file of the
Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Raichur, partly allowing the claim
petition and awarding compensation of Rs.2,16,474/-
with interest at 12% p.a.
MFA NO.31543 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur, Now represented by its
Asst. Manager, Regional Office, Hubli.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Sumitra H., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Anjinappa
S/o Bhadrayya,
Ex. Hamali, Age: 24 years,
R/o Purtipli village,
Tq. & Dist. Raichur - 584 101.
2. Sri S. Azmat Khan
S/o Ijad Khan,
Lorry Owner,
R/o 24/S.T.Estate,
4
Zenda Katta, Cowl Bazar,
Bellary - 583 101.
... Respondents
(Sri Prakash Yeli, Advocate for R-1;
Sri V.M. Biradar, Advocate for R2)
This appeal is filed U/S 30(1) of W.C. Act
against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2012
passed in WCA/CR/No.454/2008 on the file of the
Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Raichur, partly allowing the claim
petition and awarding compensation of Rs.1,81,440/-
with interest at 12% p.a.
MFA NO.31545 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur, Now represented by its
Asst. Manager, Regional Office, Hubli.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Sumitra H., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Vadakappa
S/o Ganganna,
Ex. Hamali, Age: 24 years,
R/o Purtipli village,
Tq. & Dist. Raichur - 584 101.
2. Sri S. Azmat Khan
S/o Ijad Khan,
Lorry Owner,
5
R/o 24/S.T.Estate,
Zenda Katta, Cowl Bazar,
Bellary - 583 101.
... Respondents
(Sri Prakash Yeli, Advocate for R-1;
Sri V.M. Biradar, Advocate for R2)
This appeal is filed U/S 30(1) of W.C. Act
against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2012
passed in WCA/CR/No.456/2008 on the file of the
Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation at Raichur, partly allowing the claim
petition and awarding compensation of Rs.1,81,440/-
with interest at 12% p.a.
MFA NO.31540 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur, Now represented by its
Asst. Manager, Regional Office, Hubli.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Sumitra H., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri S. Raghu
S/o Shankrayya,
Ex. Driver, Age: 30 years,
R/o Purtipli village,
Tq. & Dist. Raichur - 584 101.
2. Sri S. Azmat Khan
S/o Ijad Khan,
6
Lorry Owner,
R/o 24/S.T.Estate,
Zenda Katta, Cowl Bazar,
Bellary - 583 101.
... Respondents
(Sri Prakash Yeli, Advocate for R-1;
Sri V.M. Biradar, Advocate for R2)
This appeal is filed U/S 30(1) of W.C. Act
against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2012
passed in WCA/CR/No.451/2008 on the file of the
Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation at Raichur, partly allowing the claim
petition and awarding compensation of Rs.11,72,606/-
with interest at 12% p.a.
MFA NO.31544 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,
Raichur, Now represented by its
Asst. Manager, Regional Office,
Hubli - 582 101.
... Appellant
(By Smt. Sumitra H., Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri Shrinivas S/o Rangappa,
Ex. Hamali, Age: 26 years,
R/o Purtipli village,
Tq. & Dist. Raichur - 584 101.
7
2. Sri S. Azmat Khan
S/o Ijad Khan,
Lorry Owner,
R/o 24/S.T.Estate,
Zenda Katta, Cowl Bazar,
Bellary - 583 101.
... Respondents
(Sri Prakash Yeli, Advocate for R-1;
Sri V.M. Biradar, Advocate for R2)
This appeal is filed U/S 30(1) of W.C. Act
against the judgment and order dated 23.05.2012
passed in LOB/WCA/CR/No.455/2008 on the file of the
Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation at Raichur, partly allowing the claim
petition and awarding compensation of Rs.11,72,606/-
with interest at 12% p.a.
These appeals coming for admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGEMENT
Though the matters are listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final disposal, as they made available the relevant records.
2. The appellant - Insurance Company in all the appeals has challenged judgment and awards of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation granting compensation to the first respondent in all the 8 appeals for the injuries suffered by them in an accident in the course of their employment.
3. As all these appeals are arise out of the same accident, they are taken together for consideration.
4. Each of the first respondent in these appeals is the claimant before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and they were employed as driver, cleaner and hamals under the second respondent on his lorry bearing registration No.AP- 16/T-4039; the said vehicle met with an accident on 31.05.2008; they suffered grievous injuries and disability and were treated in the hospital. Later, they approached the Commissioner requesting to grant compensation for the injuries and disability.
5. All these cases were clubbed by the Commissioner and common evidence was recorded. In addition to the examination of the claimants and the doctor, the documents Exs.P1 to P20 were marked. The 9 insurer produced the insurance policy at Ex.R1. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Commissioner appreciated the material placed on record and granted compensation imposing the liability on the insurer to indemnify the employer. Aggrieved by the judgment and awards of the Commissioner, the insurer has approached this Court in these appeals.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the respondents.
7. The following substantial questions of law arise for consideration:
1. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the insurer is liable to pay the compensation?
2. Whether the assessment of the disability as assessed by the doctor could be accepted?
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in all the appeals that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation for the inmates 10 of the lorry, as it exceeded the limit. So also, it is her contention that the assessment of disability is improper for the reason that the injuries suffered by the claimants in all the cases were not that serious. Hence, she submits that the judgment and awards of the Commissioner require modification. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent supporting the judgment and awards of the Commissioner contends that there is no limit for the employees on the lorry and hence he contends that the insurer is liable to compensate the claimants. So also, it is his submission that the assessment of disability as assessed by the doctor is proper and no interference is needed by this Court. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the judgment and awards of the Commissioner.
9. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in which the injured were carried is a lorry.
10. Under Rule 100 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, in a goods vehicle, the owner 11 or the hirer or a bona fide employee is permitted to travel and in case if the vehicle is a light transport goods vehicle, the laden weight of which is less than 990 Kgs, employees shall not be more than one; in other light transport goods vehicle the employees shall not be more than three, whereas, in any other goods vehicle the limitation is not exceeding 7 persons. As the vehicle in question is a lorry, under the aforesaid Rule, employees not exceeding 7 persons can be carried in a goods vehicle. In the context of the aforesaid provision, the insurance policy obtained by the owner of the lorry covers the risk of persons not exceeding 7 in the goods vehicle and it has to compulsory for the insurer under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
11. As could be seen from the First Information Report and the other evidence made available, the persons who were travelling in lorry, who made the claim for compensation does not exceed 7 including the driver. Hence, I am of the opinion that the 12 Commissioner was justified in imposing the liability on the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner by paying the compensation to the claimants.
12. IN MFA No.31540/2012 - the claimant one Raghu - the 1st respondent herein has suffered the fracture of right clavicle and dislocation of the left foot. Doctor Rajesh who is examined before the Commissioner has assessed the disability at 45%; he was of the opinion that there is wasting of left deltoid muscle, tenderness over left clavicle and shoulder joint and restrictions in the movement of the left shoulder.
13. Taking into consideration the fact that the claimant has suffered the fracture of clavicle, which is said to be an ornamental bone, in the absence of any serious injury, the assessment of disability at 45% of the whole body is improper. Even in case if a person suffers disability to an extent of 45% in a particular limb, the general rule is that it is to be 1/3rd of the whole body in case if the disability is 13 in the lower limbs and 1/4th in case if it is in the upper limbs. Acceptance of the evidence of the doctor assessing the disability at 45% is erroneous. I think, it would be just and proper to consider the disability only at 15% of the whole body. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to the compensation of Rs.77,500.80 paise (2400 x 215.28 x 15).
14. IN MFA No.31541/2012 - The claimant - 1st respondent has suffered the fracture of left knee and left wrist. It reveals that there is fracture of left lateral femoral condyle and the doctor has assessed the disability at 45%. Accepting even the disability at 45% in the particular limb and considering the 1/3rd, as there is a fracture of the bone of the lower limb, the disability would be only 15%. Thereby, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.72,158/- (2160 x 222.71 x 15).
15. IN MFA No.31542/2012 - Perusal of the injuries suffered and the evidence of the doctor reveal that the claimant - 1st respondent has 14 suffered the fracture of the left shaft of Femur and right Tibia and Fibula. The disability suffered as stated by the doctor is 45%. Applying the aforesaid principles for disability of the whole body at 1/3rd of the particular limb, it would be only 15% of the whole body and therefore, the compensation payable would be Rs.60,480/- (1800 x 224 x 15).
16. IN MFA No.31543/2012 - As stated by the doctor, the claimant - 1st respondent has suffered the fracture of right radius and ulna and left lower end of Tibia. The disability assessed is 45%. Accepting the disability at 15% of the whole body, the compensation payable would be Rs.60,480/- (1800 x 224 x 15).
17. IN MFA No.31544/2012 - The claimant - 1st respondent has suffered the fracture of right wrist- colles and right 5th, 6th, 7th ribs and the disability as assessed by the doctor is 45%. Reducing it to 1/3rd, the disability would be 15% of the whole body. 15 The compensation payable would be Rs.59,770/- (1800 x 221.37 x 15).
18. IN MFA No.31545/2012 - Perusal of the evidence reveals that the claimant - 1st respondent suffered the fracture of right radius and ulna and left lower end of Tibia. As usual the disability is 45%. Therefore, 1/3rd of it would be 15% and the compensation payable would be Rs.60,480/- (1800 x 224 x 15).
19. Perusal of the evidence of the doctor and also the way in which the Commissioner has decided the cases makes this Court to observe lack of proper approach in the disposal of the cases by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. The reason at the most may be the lack of legal knowledge to dispose of such cases. Anyhow, as the claimants are entitled to the aforesaid compensation, the judgment and awards passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Raichur will have to be modified to the extent stated above.
16
The substantial questions of law raised are answered accordingly. Consequently, the appeals are allowed in part.
The claimant - 1st respondent in MFA No.31540/2012 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.77,500.80 paise with interest at 12% from 30.06.2008 till its payment.
The claimant - 1st respondent in MFA No.31541/2012 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.72,158/- with interest at 12% from 30.06.2008 till its payment.
The claimant - 1st respondent in MFA No.31542/2012 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.60,480/- with interest at 12% from 30.06.2008 till its payment.
The claimant - 1st respondent in MFA No.31543/2012 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.60,480/- with interest at 12% from 30.06.2008 till its payment.
17
The claimant - 1st respondent in MFA No.31544/2012 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.59,770/- with interest at 12% from 30.06.2008 till its payment.
The claimant - 1st respondent in MFA No.31545/2012 is entitled to total compensation of Rs.60,480/- with interest at 12% from 30.06.2008 till its payment.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the concerned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation for disbursement.
Excess amount if any, shall be refunded to the insurer.
Interim Applications filed for stay in all the appeals are infructuos and are accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG