Karnataka High Court
Savita W/O Late Shekhappa @ Shekhar vs The Divisional Manager on 11 September, 2014
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
GULBARGA BENCH
ON THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
M.F.A.No.31023/2010 (WC)
BETWEEN
1. SAVITA
W/O LATE SHEKHAPPA @ SHEKHAR
AGE : 27 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD
2. AMBIKA
D/O LATE SHEKHAPPA @ SHEKHAR
AGE : 09 YEARS,
3. DATTU
S/O LATE SHEKHAPPA @ SHEKHAR
AGE : 07 YEARS,
ALL R/O BENNUR TQ. CHITTAPUR
DIST.GULBARGA
APPELLANT NO. 2 & 3 BEING MINORS
U/G OF APPELLANT NO. 1
THEIR NATURAL MOTHER
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. GANESH NAIK & V S PATIL, ADVS.)
AND
1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
2
LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE
SUPER MARKET, GULBARGA
2. SHIVASHARANAPPA
S/O CHANDRAKANT
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:AGRICULTURE
AND OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.
CNL 6017 R/O SHARANA NAGAR,
ALAND DIST. GULBARGA
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. J AUGUSTIN, ADV. FOR R1
R2 SERVED & UNREPTD)
THIS MFA FILED U/S 30(1) OF WC ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT: 05.3.10 IN WC/SR/NO.126/2008
ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER
FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION GULBARGA, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner in granting inadequate compensation, the claimants have filed this appeal seeking enhancement.
2. The appeal was admitted on 13.08.2014 to consider the following substantial questions of law: 3
1. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation has committed an error in misreading the evidence on record in wrongly holding the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/-?
2. Whether the interest awarded by the Commissioner is sustainable in law?
3. The only the contention is that the income was claimed at Rs.4,500/- per month, but the Tribunal disbelieved the plea and held the income at Rs.3,000/-
per month. On considering the contentions and material as well as the order of the Commissioner, I' am of the considered view that the same is erroneous and that it will be appropriate to hold his income at Rs.4,000/- per month. Hence, the first substantial question of law is answered by holding that the Commissioner committed an error in misreading the evidence on record in wrongly holding the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month. The income of the deceased is held at Rs.4,000/- 4 per month. The compensation now awarded works out as follows:
Rs.4,000/- less 50% x 207.98 = Rs.4,15,960/-
4. The second contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that interest has been granted by the Commissioner at 12% from the date of impugned order. The same runs contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 (3) SCJ 274 in the case of Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others.
5. Hence, following the said judgment, the order is modified. The interest is awarded at 12% shall be paid by the insurer from the date of the accident. The second substantial question of law is answered by holding that the interest awarded by the Commissioner is erroneous.
The interest is awarded from the date of the accident. Consequently, both the substantial questions of law are accordingly answered. Consequently, the order of the 5 Commissioner is modified. The claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.4,15,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the accident.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed on the aforesaid reasons.
Sd/-
JUDGE sdu