Dismissed

The Divisional Manager v. Sri. Ravindra @ Ravi S/O Shrimanth Itagi (Pujari)

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2014MFA/30978/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In two miscellaneous first appeals under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, the High Court of Karnataka dismissed appeals filed by an injured claimant seeking enhanced compensation and by the insurer challenging the award, holding that there were no substantial questions of law as the awarded amount was justified considering statutory income restrictions and assessed disability.

What did the court decide?

Both appeals were dismissed with costs. The amount in deposit was directed to be withdrawn by the claimant-appellant.

The Divisional Manager Vs Sri. Ravindra @… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, GULBARGA BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

��

MFA 32473/2012

BETWEEN:

Ravindra @ Ravi S/o Srimanth Itagi (Pujari) Age: 25 years, Occupation: Ex-Driver R/o Shivaji Nagar, Gulbarga.

¶10

… APPELLANT

¶11

(Shri Shivasharan Reddy and Shri S.M. Kandkur, Advocates)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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.

¶14

¶15

The Divisional Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Bilgundi Complex, Opposite to Mini Vihan Soudha, Station Road, Gulbarga.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(Shri Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocate for respondent No.2 Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed with vide order dated 10.6.2013)

¶18

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.

¶19

MFA 30978/2012

¶20

BETWEEN:

¶21

The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, N.G. Complex, Opposite to Mini Vihan Soudha, Gulbarga – 585 102.

¶22

… APPELLANT

¶23

(Shri Sanjay M. Joshi, Advocate)

¶24

AND:

¶25

Ravindra @ Ravi S/o Srimanth Itagi (Pujari)

¶26

¶27

Age: 25 years, Occupation: Ex-Driver R/o Shivaji Nagar, Gulbarga – 585 102.

¶28

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.

¶29

… RESPONDENTS

¶30

(Shri Shivasharan Reddy, Advocate for respondent No.1)

¶31

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.

¶32

These appeals coming on for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶33

��

¶34

There is a delay of 9 days in filing MFA No.30978/2012.

¶35

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

¶36

the application, the delay is condoned. I.A.No.1/2014 is allowed.

¶37

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

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.

¶43

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

¶44

¶45

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.

¶46

The amount in deposit be withdrawn by the claimantappellant.

¶47

� �! ��

¶48

swk

The Divisional Manager v. Sri. Ravindra @ Ravi S/O Shrimanth Itagi (Pujari)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Divisional Manager v. Sri. Ravindra @ Ravi S/O Shrimanth Itagi (Pujari)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramesh S/O Chandrappa Hosadoddi Vs Shivasharnappa S/O Baburao and Anr.

Allabaksh S/O Pasha Miyan Vs Baburao S/O Sangshetty Biradar and Anr.

Paramanand S/O Itappa @ Iranna Koli Vs Sayyad Jalaloddin Mohammededsab and Anr.

Icici Lombard Gen.Ins, Co.Ltd, Vs Irayya S/O Nagayya Hiremath Anr.

Smt Vijayashri W/O Gundappa Rathod Vs the Md, Msrtc (St)

Ningappa S/O Devindrappa Ayaldor Vs M/S Icici Lombard Motor Insurance Co.Ltd., and Anr.