Partly allowed

Hanumantha Naika v. Sri Pattabi Ramegowda H a

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2020MFA/1924/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal against an employee compensation award set aside the Tribunal's finding on age and enhanced compensation. The High Court determined the appellant's age as 48 years based on available medical evidence rather than the Tribunal's 52 years. Consequently, monthly wages were fixed at Rs.7,000/-, leading to a revised compensation award of Rs.1,31,547/- payable by the insur

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,31,547/- payable by the insurer with 6% interest from the date of the accident.

Hanumantha Naika Vs Sri Pattabi Ramegowda H a — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.1924 OF 2016 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

HANUMANTHA NAIKA S/O BASING NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O SHIVA BUILDING, MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

[BY SRI. VINOD GOWDA, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC)]

¶11

AND:

¶12

SRI. PATTABI RAMEGOWDA H.A. S/O ANNEGOWDA, OWNER MELINA HULUVATHI ESTATE, JAGARA HOBALI, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101.

¶13

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, YASHORAM CHAMBERS, RATHNAGIRI ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.M. POONACHA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2;

¶15

¶16

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.01.2016 PASSED IN E.C.A. NO.218/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 2^ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND FURTHER SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶18

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the 2^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Chikkamagaluru (henceforth referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in E.C.A.No.218/2014.

¶21

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶22

The claimant filed a petition under Section

¶23

32 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short

¶24

¶25

hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1923”) seeking compensation for accidental injuries suffered by him during the course of his employment with the owner – respondent No.1. This case was transferred to the Tribunal and was re-numbered as E.C.A. No.218/2014.

¶26

The claim petition discloses that the

¶27

claimant was an employee under the respondent No.1 who was a coffee planter at Huluvathi village at Chikkamagaluru Taluk. On 20.03.2011, when the claimant was harvesting pepper by using a ladder, he lost balance and fell down from a height of 20 feet. As a result, he sustained grievous injuries on his right hand and waist and was admitted to Chikkamagaluru District hospital, where he was treated as an inpatient. The claimant was aged 45 years and was earning a daily wage of Rs.250/-. He therefore, filed a claim petition seeking award of compensation.

¶28

¶29

The owner of the coffee plantation entered

¶30

appearance and filed his objections and admitted the relationship of the employer and the employee, as well as the fact that the accident occurred during the course of employment. He contended that he had spent the entire expenses of treatment at M.G.Hospital, Chikkamanagluru and after treatment, the claimant was all-right and had no permanent disablement. He contended that a policy of insurance was availed from the insurer – respondent No.2 herein covering the risk of various categories of employees for the period from 06.07.2010 to 05.07.2011. Therefore, he contended that even if the Tribunal was to hold that the claimant is entitled to get the compensation, it is the insurer who has to indemnify him.

¶31

During the pendency of the petition before

¶32

the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, the insurer – respondent No.2 was impleaded.

¶33

¶34

The insurer denied the accident as well as

¶35

the relationship of the claimant and the owner of the coffee plantation and contended that the owner of the coffee plantation had intimated the accident to the insurer but did not produce any document and therefore, the insured – owner had committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy. It also contended that the accident in question was due to the negligence on the part of the claimant and it was therefore, not liable to pay the compensation.

¶36

Before the Tribunal, the claimant was examined as PW1 and he examined a doctor who treated the claimant as PW2 and marked Exs.P1 to P19. The insurer marked Ex.R1, which was the policy of insurance.

¶37

The Tribunal noticed that by virtue of the notification issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi dated 31.05.2010, the Central

¶38

¶39

Government had fixed the monthly wages for the purpose of Sub Section (1) of Section (4) of the Act, 1923, at a sum of Rs.8,000/- and taking that into account, the Tribunal considered the age of the claimant at 52 years and the percentage of partial disablement at 19.6% and awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.42,982.80 payable by the insurer and a sum of Rs.26,649.33 to be payable by the owner of the coffee plantation.

¶40

In order to fix the liability upon the owner of

¶41

the coffee plantation, the Tribunal noticed that the owner had declared the annual wages of Rs.1,50,000/to five permanent employees when he availed a policy of insurance. However, he contended that he had been paying daily wages of Rs.130/- to Rs.135/-. Thus, the Tribunal held that the owner of the coffee plantation was paying far less than what he had declared before the insurer. Therefore, it directed the owner of the

¶42

¶43

coffee plantation also to pay the proportionate

¶44

compensation.

¶45

The claimant feeling aggrieved by the

¶46

aforesaid Judgment and Award has filed the present appeal.

¶47

This appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:

¶48

(i) Whether the Commissioner for Employee’s Compensation / Tribunal is justified in taking the age of the claimant at 52 years ignoring the contents in the Wound Certificate – Ex.P4 so also in the Claim Petition, which clearly depict the age of the claimant as 45 years?

¶49

ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in taking wages of the appellant – workman at Rs.4,050/- in view of Ex.R1 – Insurance Policy, in the facts and circumstances of the present case?

¶50

iii) Whether the appellant – workman has made out a case to take his monthly wages at Rs.8,000/- in view of the notification dated 31.5.202010 issued by the Central Government,

¶51

¶52

in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1B) of Section 4 of the Employee’s Compensation Act specifying monthly wages at Rs.8,000/-?

¶53

13. Re-Question No.(i):

¶54

It is seen from the claim petition that the age of the claimant is shown as 45 years. The owner stated that the claimant was 60 years old at the time of the accident, while the insurer did not specifically dispute the age of the claimant but generally denied the age, employment, wages, injuries etc., It is noticed from Ex.P4 that the age of the claimant was shown as 45 years and in the OPD slip, the age of the claimant is shown as 52 years. The doctor who issued the disability certificate also claimed that the claimant was 45 years old and the X-ray of the claimant also show that he was 45 years old. Ex.P14 which is an out patient slip issued by the Araluguppe Mallegowda District Hospital shows the age of the claimant as 45 years and all other documents issued by the Araluguppe Mallegowda District Hospital also shows that the age of the claimant

¶55

¶56

as 45 years. Even during the course of cross examination of PW1, a suggestion was put to PW1 that the age of the claimant was 60 to 62 years, to which the claimant responded that his age was 48 years. Except this, there is no document to establish the age of the claimant.

¶57

The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that the claimant leads a nomadic life and there is no proof of actual date of birth and therefore, contends that the age as declared by him in his evidence may be taken into consideration.

¶58

The learned counsel for the insurer did not demonstrate that it had any special knowledge about the age of the claimant. However, a suggestion put to the claimant that he was aged 60 to 62 years was without any basis, but such a suggestion was made based on assumption. But for these statements, there is no material on record to indicate that the claimant

¶59

¶60

was aged more than 48 years and therefore, this Court

¶61

can unhesitatingly come to the conclusion that the age of the claimant was 48 years and not 52 years as held by the Tribunal.

¶62

16. Re-question Nos.(ii) & (iii):

¶63

The claimant stated in his claim petition that he was earning a monthly wages of Rs.250/- though the owner of the coffee plantation had claimed that he was paying wages of Rs.150/- per day. Since, the owner of the coffee plantation had not exposed himself for cross examination, except the statement of the claimant that he was earning Rs.250/- per day, there is no material to disbelieve the daily wages earned by the claimant which, if worked out would approximately comes to Rs.7,000/- per month after deducting four non-working days. Therefore, the income of the claimant would have to be considered at a sum of Rs.7,000/- per month. If the permanent disability of the claimant is accepted at 19.6% and income of the claimant is considered at a

¶64

¶65

sum of Rs.7,000/- per month, then the compensation to

¶66

which the claimant would be entitled to is;

¶67

(60% of Rs.7000) x 19.6% = 823.20 and the applicable factor would be 159.80. Therefore, the total compensation to which the claimant is entitled to is Rs.1,31,547.36 which is rounded off to Rs.1,31,547/-

¶68

In view of the fact that owner of the coffee plantation had availed a policy of insurance in respect of five permanent workers on a declared annual wages of Rs.1,50,000/-, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,31,547/- along with 6% interest per annum from the 30^th day of the accident, till the date of realization.

¶69

The insurer is directed to deposit the said

¶70

amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

JUDGE

¶73

Hanumantha Naika v. Sri Pattabi Ramegowda H a

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hanumantha Naika v. Sri Pattabi Ramegowda H a

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

Smt. Laxmamma Vs the Manager

Sri Gangi Reddy Vs P Sreenivasulu Reddy

Praxair India Private Limited Vs Inox Air Products Private Limited

The Branch Manager Vs Ningamma

D Madhavamurthy S/O Late v G Doraiswamy Vs R Govindaswamy Since Dead by His Lrs

Legal Manager Vs Leela.K @ Leelamma