Karnataka High Court
The Manager vs Smt Paddamma @ G H Padmavathi on 28 August, 2018
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
M.F.A. NO. 668 OF 2018 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
THE MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
BRANCH OFFICE,
1ST FLOOR, PB NO.54,
JAYADEVA COMPLEX,
B H ROAD,TUMAKURU,
REPRESENTED BY
THE REGIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
REGIONAL OFFICE,
5TH AND 6TH FLOORS,
KRISHI BHAVAN,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. R RAJAGOPALAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT PADDAMMA @ G H PADMAVATHI
W/O SHRI RANGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
2. KUM.PUSHPALATHA C R
D/O SHRI RANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
CHIKKANNANAHALLI
C. N. DURGA HOBLI,
KORTAGERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 138
2
3. SHRI SHREERANGAPPA
S/O SHRI MARUDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT CHIKKANNANAHALLI,
C N DURGA HOBLI,
KORATAGERE TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572138
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1 & R2 )
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 12.10.2017 PASSED IN ECA NO.5/2014
ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND MACT, MADHUGIRI, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.8,28,137/- WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM
THE DATE OF PETITION TILL REALIZATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the insurer lays a challenge to the judgment and order dated 12.10.2017 made by the MACT, Madhugiri, allowing ECA No. 5/2014 whereby a compensation of Rs.8,28,137/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. is awarded subject to usual condition of bank deposit.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in a vehicular accident that happened on 01.04.2009 involving the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer bearing Registration No. KA-13-T-5476-77 one Mr. Praveen Kumar 3 sustained fatal injuries and breathed his last, in a short while. The Legal Representatives of the deceased presented the claim petition in ECA No. 5/2014 seeking compensation. The appellant-insurer had filed the Objections resisting the claim on various grounds. To prove the claim, Smt. Padmavathi, the mother of the deceased was examined as PW1 and in her evidence, eight documents came to be marked as per Exhibits P1 to P which inter alia, comprised of the Police Papers, Post Mortem Report, IMV Report, Genealogical Tree and SSLC Marks Card of the deceased. From the side of the insurer, one Mr. Abdul Aziz, its official came to be examined as RW1 and in his evidence, two documents as per Exhibits R1 and R2 came to be marked i.e., Authorization Letter and Insurance Policy respectively.
3. The MACT functioning as the Ex-Officio Commissioner for Employees Compensation, has made the impugned judgment and order.
4. The Insurer challenges the said judgment and order on the grounds that: a) there was no employer- employee relationship between the deceased and the insured of the vehicle in question; b) the deceased even if 4 was assumed to be in the employ of the insured owner of the offending vehicle, still he being not a cleaner, was not covered by the Policy in view of the provisions of the IMT 28; c) It was only an Act Policy and therefore, no compensation would have been awarded for the death of the person concerned; d) The MACT ought to have discounted 50% of the income of the deceased while computing the compensation; lastly, e) the MACT ought not to have awarded Rs. 75,000/- as compensation under the other head as against prescribed Rs.2,500/-.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants vehemently opposes the appeal stating that the questions which are now being agitated before the Court do not involve any legal element at all and that neither they are substantial questions of law nor the questions of law simply set hereto. He further submits that the Commissioner being an expert adjudicatory body constituted under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 will have the advantage of accumulated wisdom and therefore, the findings recorded by the Commissioner are entitled to due interference at the hands of this Court. In short, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 5
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the insurer and the learned counsel for the claimants. I have perused the appeal papers.
7. The first substantial question of law argued by the learned counsel for the Insurer is that there was absolutely no evidentiary material to establish employer- employee relationship between the deceased and the insured owner. The second question of law urged by the Insurer is that the deceased was not working as the cleaner of the vehicle but could be at the most, a coolie or hamal and therefore, he is not covered by the Policy in view of IMT 28. Both the above questions for being answered, the Statute Book need not be opened nor its pages be turned. If the record of evidence is opened, the answer emerges. Thus, both these questions being essentially within the domain of facts, the same cannot be treated as the questions of law and muchless, the substantial questions of law, subject to just exceptions which are conspicuously absent in this case. Therefore, these two contentions fail.
6
8. The next question of law that the case involved an Act Policy and therefore, there was no coverage for the deceased is also misconceived, since the evidence shows that an additional premium of Rs.25/- was paid for extending the coverage for the employees like the deceased. Thus, here too, the very substratum for raising the question collapses and eventually, the contention fails.
9. The next substantial question of law urged by the Insurer is that the MACT ought to have discounted 50 % of the salary/wages of the deceased towards his personal expenses. The same having not being done, the award is defective, has to be answered in the affirmative. The discount by 50 % is the prescription of the Schedule to the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. That having not been done, the award of compensation which eventually would have been lesser needs to be modified.
10. The last contention that the MACT ought not to have awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation under "other heads" when the Schedule to the Act itself prescribes a maximum of Rs.2,500/- and therefore, to that extent, the award is defective, has got force. The substantial question 7 of law would be: is it permissible to the MACT to award a sum in excess of what is prescribed by law as the maximum, by way of compensation. The answer has to be in the negative.
11. With the altered factors, the compensation is reworked out with the aid of the memo of calculation furnished at the Bar, as under:
Income taken Rs.3,750/- per month Compensation 3750x1/2x221.37 = Rs. 4,15,068.50 Funeral Expenses = Rs. 2,500.00 Total Compensation = Rs. 4, 17,568.50 Which is rounded off to Rs.4,17,570/-
12. In the above facts and circumstances, this appeal succeeds in part; the impugned judgment and order are modified reducing the compensation from Rs.8,28,137/- to Rs. 4,17,570/- (Four Lakh Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Rupees) only with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, which would accrue due one month after the accident; all other terms and conditions of the impugned judgment and award are left intact.
The amount in deposit shall be immediately disbursed to the Claimants as compensation and the 8 residue if any, shall be refunded to the appellant-insurer, forthwith; the deficit if any shall be made good by the Insurer.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv