Karnataka High Court
Ravindra@ Ravi S/O Srimanth Itagi ... vs Abdul Basheer S/O Abdul Khuddus Gogi & ... on 1 August, 2014
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
GULBARGA BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.32473/2012 (WC)
C/W
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.30978/2012 (WC)
MFA 32473/2012
BETWEEN:
Ravindra @ Ravi
S/o Srimanth Itagi (Pujari)
Age: 25 years, Occupation: Ex-Driver
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Gulbarga.
... APPELLANT
(Shri Shivasharan Reddy and
Shri S.M. Kandkur, Advocates)
AND:
1. Abdul Basheer
S/o Abdul Khuddus Gogi
Age: Major, Occupation: Business
And owner of the Tum Tum
Bearing No. KA-32-A-240,
R/o H.No. 1-65,
Yateem Khana Complex,
Gulbarga.
2
2. The Divisional Manager
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Bilgundi Complex,
Opposite to Mini Vihan Soudha,
Station Road, Gulbarga.
... RESPONDENTS
(Shri Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2
Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with vide order dated
10.6.2013)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30
(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the
Judgement and Award dated 14.03.2012 passed in WCA/CR
No.17/2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner
for Workmen's Compensation at Gulbarga, partly allowing the
claim petition and seeking for enhancement of compensation.
MFA 30978/2012
BETWEEN:
The Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited,
Divisional Office, N.G. Complex,
Opposite to Mini Vihan Soudha,
Gulbarga - 585 102.
... APPELLANT
(Shri Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Ravindra @ Ravi
S/o Srimanth Itagi (Pujari)
3
Age: 25 years, Occupation: Ex-Driver
R/o Shivaji Nagar, Gulbarga - 585 102.
2. Abdul Basheer
S/o Abdul Khuddus Googi
Business and owner of the Tum Tum
Bearing No. KA-32/A-240,
R/o H.No. 1-65,
Yateemkhana Complex,
Gulbarga- 585 103.
... RESPONDENTS
(Shri Shivasharan Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.1)
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30
(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 against the
Judgement and Award dated 14.03.2012 passed in WCA/CR
No.17/2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner
for Workmen's Compensation at Gulbarga, wherein awarding
compensation of Rs.3,38,380/- and interest thereon @ 12% per
annum.
These appeals coming on for Orders this day, the Court
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
There is a delay of 9 days in filing MFA No.30978/2012. An application in I.A.No.1/2014 is filed seeking condonation of delay. For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the application, the delay is condoned. I.A.No.1/2014 is allowed.
4
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. MFA No.32473/212 is preferred by the claimant in respect of injuries suffered in an accident, which had occurred during and in the course of his employment and MFA No.30978/2012 is preferred by the insurer who was required to meet the liability.
3. The grounds raised in the appeal by the claimant is to the effect that he was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month and the same having been restricted to Rs.4,000/-, results in injustice and further that the claimant has lost his eyesight and therefore the disability was assessed at 75% by the medical practitioner, whereas the Tribunal has restricted the same at 65% and this has resulted in diminution of the compensation that is awarded.
4. While the appellant-insurer in MFA No.30978/2012 would challenge the award on two grounds. Firstly, that there is enough and more material produced by the claimant himself which would disclose that the injuries suffered by him are 5 simple injuries and it is subsequently sought to be exaggerated as being serious injuries namely, loss of eyesight. This has weighed with the Tribunal in awarding a larger amount of compensation.
5. On these two contentions, it is to be noticed that the claimant was a driver by profession and the accident was of the year 2009 and therefore it could be safely presumed that he was earning much more than Rs.4,000/- per month. Having regard to the statutory restriction on the monthly income that can be adopted, the same is taken as Rs.4,000/-. This has apparently resulted the compensation awarded under the un-amended Act to a lesser degree than the actual amount, which the claimant would have been entitled. As opposed to this, the fact that the Tribunal has accepted that there was a permanent disability at 65%, though the medical practitioner had stated that it was at 75% and thereby the appellant being conferred with the benefit, though there is a doubt as to the seriousness of the afflict or 6 injury would not also be relevant since any excess amount that is granted in favour of the appellant-claimant is offset by the income being restricted to Rs.4,000/-. Hence, justification in holding that the appellant-claimant was entitled to the amount of compensation that was awarded. Consequently, both these appeals are dismissed as they do not give rise to any substantial questions of law in the first place.
The amount in deposit be withdrawn by the claimant- appellant.
Sd/-
JUDGE swk