Sri Mohammed Riyaz vs Sri Ummer Faruq on 1 July, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Mohammed Riyaz vs Sri Ummer Faruq on 1 July, 2011

Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 5AN:é;A,Li:§'r§E"%  "

DATES THIS THE 1" DAY OF 3ULY;'2'U':§j_".  "
BEFORE     

THE H{}N'BLE MR. 3usT:cE A.N.K?EN§}*G~£3P£i'LA"5:§C'f";»'5;£'e { --:
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.?._2'f? OF 2:3%{)A8mz:;;=, 

BETWEEN:

Sri Mohammed Riyaz, I
Aged about 21 years, '
S/<3. Abdui Rehaman,
R/at CS. Road;
Kundapura.

      _  ..APPELLANT
{By Sri H.Pa\;'a"n¢;; ;:h§£z'd1ja_'_SE}et:y,.jAdv.)

1- SrE1Ummé%"L¥?--aru€i«; 
S/'0.'~Ab':jui'¥<ha§:ier,~. * __ ' .
R/at K:.~;d'épat'nVa,; Pa-du"i3.i_d:*é,
UdupL'L . 7'7.i

2. Liijifetﬁ Ersdié ".f--:3sg;_farzce Ce. i.td.,

 é "e:v:s:ena:..Aoff:ce,

"  Rep. Vb;?'."§tSA'T:D%EvEsioma! Manages".

» _"-E<;:fis.hn«a '£Z_dm__p£e><, 2"" Ffoerg.
__3.B..,F*a_m.h 'vavaiad, Udupi,

3£ RESPONQENTS

 Sr? §x }'1:\E.Krish{1a Swamyg. Adv, fer R2;
 "  'N.31:iCE ta R1 is. dispensed with viée ercier
'   .§_a't;eé 21§.:%.§2C311f)



'The i4FA egfned under Seeﬁon 30(1) of eejfgﬁt

against the judgment and order dated 4.6.200_8j"b'ae.se§j"::;§g__'= _
WCA:CR-48/N.F,/2001?, on the fiie of the LabGUi7_€)ffi'C€§?°' 3i::ri'_'e 
Commissioner for werkmen eom;3er:sai:ien,_--~€.$ei:{;;:i, iizéstrictg  V
Udupi, partiy aiiewing the dam peti'iiie--:1fo.r c_0n5t';;:er2se--ti.~oh'--»&

and seeking enhancement of comp'ensetieh.'-T,  '-

This eppeai ceming on f:n:__hear'i'r~_g"this   

JQDGMEﬁI_ t E
A eiaim petition' fi.i..ec:i b.y""t--hx§~;-- 'a"'epeiiant"«egiainst the

deiivered the fofiowing:

respondents to awarcitiie permanent
disability suffe§*e.<;i' and   on account
of the  an RTA, which
occurregi..otfi"'V2£8.ii-:23.ZCiOj§:3,::V'i1eu:i:ijgiibeeri allowed in part,
conterzeing.  egainst the evidence placed
on reeeéri:f4 *  has been ﬂied; seeking

enhjaséweeetent é'f*~a:emeensation5

'V  ».§s'.ie_H.Pavena Chandra Shettyg. ieamed Ceunsef

e;ée,e'erinvg:."'e:%:eAr: the appeiient, contended that; the

"V.,Cemm%:sei'ener is not justified is taking the wages ef the

A 3::-2g3pe'§~§_iee:/workmen at 335388,/-- pm and in net awarding

  iejiteseet er: the Cemeeesetiee emeeet eaeif 28.€31.2§Q1? tééi

E
2

"3

3%

.»z



3
the expiry of 30 days of the order/award. Learned cozmsei

submitted that, taking into cansideratiorz the evideri§:e"ren

record, the wages ought to have been taken 

pm and aise awarded interest w.e.f 28.fji1.2i7;*--i:.3,"}'_:;:'V.VV V 

3. §ri A,N.Krishna Sm:a'h:y:;.. "iearr:e d--._<;oi:.ri::.e'i'~.

appearing for the 2"  A'<.*'>ri__ ir:eV'-.:oi:'h:e'r'''h"and '' '

contended that, there,heirigi--naicrediibieitevvi--:1e.ri§ce with
regard to the wages  to
the appeIlant,vt§ie in reckoning
the wages    submits that,
in  Court in the case of
we Tzoéiiziz i----723,, vs. MUBASIR AHMED «

20:37 AC_}'a3,Z;!5V  Commissioner is justified in

 direet§§.nVgi'the crim-pe_ri_eatien amount to be deposited within

 case of defauit ta pay the interest,

 the"i;_e%se; which E have perused,

A  V"'r§Aeé:eré':ir1at§eri are:

 Ziéiizrxiew ef the rivai contentions and the record

i""'?'

he questions fer

W «M:f'FW

E 

K" ;

«..»»*'



4
1. Whether the Commissioner is juetsfiee' in

reckoning the wages ef the appeffent eff"-_
€3,830/'~ pm? 

2, Whether the Cemmissfoner is jue:if:e:d'Ef:~. %

not awarding fntereszﬂ for} "e'V:'2?zeV'v "

cemﬁensation amount 'aftejf' ee~,'~{;3i;+*:/ '35'  

days period fromV.tb_e ::iaéiZe o~2" aCCia§**eVg2f_v¥  
cause of action aro's'e:"fer the 'c:/.ef'm  AV 
5. The appef!e'f::t   the lg'
respondent to dfjve  registration
No.:<A-19»A-436';.f'rhe:<_sa;gj':§;}eﬁ:ﬁfe:-'i2va.s.:VV§«nsured by the 2"
respondent; {he  Veéjmijtyoyment, an accident
occurree  resuft, the appeiiant
sustained fracture of superior and

énferie--r.3ub§E:" :1a miV.%30ré'es end fracture ef acetebufam bane.

 "He"'ve--%{e3i..§--.e.,tai<en the """ 'ifeatment, eeseite which; he has

e.5Li§fe%erj:"§;:er':ﬁe_rient disabitity and there is fees at' earning

ear3a44e§ty,,. .;f%h:e'Tepee£iani daimed that he wee eaid safety at'

 "-~,_ '-?S,GQ8}'sV__§2.m anﬁ bate ef 350/- per day by the empéeyer.

   ';§ﬁi*:€§_ﬁé'§T't;3§€33i8f' did me? epeeer in the preeeeeéngs befere the

 ﬁemmésséener. "Fee 2" reeeendeeiwieeurance tempera;

mR6'AV"1WW

V.

'
Qygxf

3'»

iv.



opposed the cieim. There is no credibie evidence p%a.ee§i7e_n

recere with regard to the wages. The Commiesie'ﬁe;t..j:kf{e:_:;:j_

held that an autertckshaw driver was earn%egA'_ibi:e':*e:   

$3,300/~ em during 2006. ':ﬁe'%<.;r':g.'vv.__¥§ete }

Censideratien the ruimg rateeéof wages, thee-"-lwaiges ";v'e"e 

taken at *<'3,8OCr/-- pm. The <::!e"inf{ef'the"a.ee'e§farf.fEtVHVet his
employer was paying %'.iS:,'{3.QO/ gate Eeéng not
under serious <::ha§teng e  no rebuttaﬁ
evidence, the}.   eeve taken the
wages of  -- pm. As a resu§t,
the    "'ea.pe;=Ecity being erroneous;
modifiee,tEe'e efv erder in that regard is Calied

for. Themes ,0?ee2<ei"e§\.'s'Capacity wouid be %:,ee;1ee/~
{e24ee;/a_x e--2,e"'x 35/mo). Thus there weuid be

""enVtfé';3*r§.<:e§;w:'2e:ﬁt.A_.ef coeeeensatien by 23.408/=.

 '.V--"sTe'eVVEiebiEéty to pay eempeesetien has arisen

 wé:h"tbe'A.eC'currence ef accident, the empéeyment injuries

 "..f.si;.zste§;':ee ane the permanent disabiiity sefferee. The

 Sgeniewiseéeeer eugei to heve exereésee the eewer eedez

.- 3,:
es' X,/'*

 .

S,4~A{3} of the Workmerfs Compensation Act and or'e?§:é»red payment ef interest on the eompensatien ameez-r:.tA;~.'$::i'ee' the compensation was not deposited by tb.e_»'eme%:eye§er»:

the insurer within 30 days of cause ef' a*e:fie.n *fer.__fr:e._<fJ'a'im '« arose. The date from which the !ia:b.%__¥§€y_£e pejyjAEnteres:t'*i.ré'* workmen compensation cases'-Ve.h:3's been d.e§:Ede"{§ 'nih the decision reported at Ivl;--R..V2OOA9""K}i_R $422, ﬁw'h'ere'iD it has been held as foliewst " A' ' '.

"8. Keepingin :4? down in the case :'efe:'re€} se:_p1*a, 'necessary to state that the in the ease of PRATAP 1\iA_RAII'\? eﬁppears to have not been bi;0Lzghi" Horfble Supreme Ceurt, wfzeri thg' 3:}. ihe ease of NATIQNAL zA?sDII;gr\?eE"<:e:;:x§e*:z:;2$;Y LTD. us MUBASIR AHMED AND ; Eﬁﬂgrfzifﬁ V-{:;{A"i"U2'e/'e;DI's CASE {SUPRA} were delivered. 'Lv$D Ci'eeiVsioDs are by Benches 'Le two Honble .V;j:;_d;2ge:e.eef Lhe Apex Court whereas, the ration of Paw the ease Di' Praiap Nazrain Smgh Dee':-3 A has; been feiiewed in the Subsequent easee, was rendered by 2: querum ef more {hen two V " Heﬁfbie Judgee. Under Art:'<:Ee~E4E of {he Cenetitutien ..efE:1ci§z2_ the Judgmené of {he H«:>:':'b}e Eiéupreneze Gear: ﬁe Dixezeiingg an 223$ {he Cezgzzée in the eo2:D.é§y. E£ee;ever§ sf' :y/,;

mas ext?

M"

in the eveni if there is a ciesnﬂiei; on the QL1€?Sﬁ{)}'1 :3-'_"__1a2v in two decisions. while ee:1sidering the qL1estiQz:._:ii<7_é:xw en the paint and interpreiaiien of Statue, th'iis'C§;ui*'ii:

required is foiiew the eeurse ef aetior: 213 has bees" Eaid dawn by the larger Fail Bencéhef this C§eue{ V of Geveindazxaik G Eialaghatigi V€sug::_1-*-93;?

9. In View Cef the ratio Vevfeiaw '}VEEi.€1"'-?iO\VI}.'E)'s'.

Court m the Case of PR1;/;i§r';:>:.§> N,»%RAIzx<.. S1.z\frE;;,;{I"' 'DE:o's {SUPRA}. which the bind{ng_ preceeieimviin fegar<:1 to the expression "i'e.E_f:due'fV; aippHe2u_"if1'g.ein Seetion--:«:LA(1} and (3) 0f the Act, folleﬁvifivg' the said ratio to the £"aet3 :»f_the:_' ii to be held that the anxetﬁnt eonﬂpeizeetiebijbeeetfies due an expiry of one aeeidem and if the same is n0EV'pai_<x:i'j;Q'r 'Eii¢§;«0s:--:§¢'a.' in_i'e1*es'{ becomes payable after J{,1:}.vC exp§;;y"VVé43'i7-.e1:e rﬁe:*:1;I:: period from the date of the we>ﬂ::Iie11 Suasia.it1ien"g..__iﬁjiiries due is an accident in the e0urse"~n£'V'i1isV'Ven1'p1dy1"nent and not after 30 days from »'3.j;11eLA'daie "er;;§e;f/aewar'::1 passed by the Commissiener. ' 'E'h"ee 1ea'1<:1ed Commissioner has erred in not applying enunciated in the ease of Pratap Narain {supra} and in not awarding the interest g1f?f§':3§' ezégeiry GE' 38 eiays fmm the daie ef the accident Eiémee, the eenientions cf the Eearned Ceunsei for ' :_i'€S§}GI1{§€f1{ are unae{:ep:a'e}e. S¥.}bS'§,§;1I1§§a§ quesiiezz ef Eaw satarids :m:%--:we:*e:i 22eee:*di::gijg." V) W E 1 «>2 /' 8 In the Circumstances, the Cemmissicmer is-._n0t justified in not awarding interest on the amount w.e.f 28&O1.2{3G?, For the foregoing reasdns, the i's..'a§I4d'we3d .' part.

The compensatiVd'="¥..V §3*a3(,:*1"::eVEVue.>,"L_:'-s'fa;1_.ds.' Adet-srniined at 31,88,160/--. The am0zuj'f1's__sh'3.!.E at 12% 13.3 from 28,O1.ZQO«?:A: 'gilt by the insurance ::b;ee_r:"'%astened with the iiabifity,and."VAV'hs"s:'ésiI§§:s0 award passed by the Commis-sio'n'er.

The iLhsuVVran_<:':3 Acoﬁaﬁany shalt deposit the baiance " amcés;i"i'3t;»_bAef5re thé' '€csmmissi0ner. :\;:g"s;.gs:é.~.,V.i.~ Dzf.:::w_ vétsddiﬁed award.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court