Partly allowed

Sri. Malatesh v. Sri. Ravikumar

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2020MFA/7294/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a first appeal against an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It enhanced the compensation from Rs.3,31,506/- to Rs.4,42,208/- by correcting the monthly wage assessment and dismissed the appellant's claims regarding insurance companies' liability.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.3,31,506/- to Rs.4,42,208/-; exonerated insurance respondents upheld.

Sri. Malatesh Vs Sri. Ravikumar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

M.F.A.NO.7294/2011

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7294/2011(WC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI.MALATESH S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT BENNE HALLI JAGALUR TALUK DAVANGERE DISTRICT … APPELLANT (BY SRI.HARISH N.R. ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.M.SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI.RAVIKUMAR OWNER OF BOREWELL LORRY, NO.KA-06/S-1688 BALLAKERE VILLAGE KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., DAVANGERE

¶13

SRI.MANJUNATH S/O VITTAL RAO OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-20-388 KALLESHWARA TRANSPORTS R/AT SINGATAGERE KADUR TALUK CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT

¶14

M.F.A.NO.7294/2011

¶15

¶16

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., HUBLI – 580 020 … RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI.G.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED V/O DATED 08.02.2016)

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.02.2011 PASSED IN KA.AA.DA/KA/NA/PA/CR-187/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

Aggrieved by the award dated 26.02.2011 in WCA CR-187/2006 passed by the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Davanagere, (‘the Commissioner’ for short) the claimant has preferred the above appeal.

¶22

The appellant claimed that he was working under the first respondent as helper in his lorry bearing No.KA-06 S 1688 and the said lorry belonged to the first respondent. On 05.05.2005 when the appellant was traveling in Lorry No.KA-20-388, the said lorry met with

¶23

an accident near Banandur village and he suffered

¶24

M.F.A.NO.7294/2011

¶25

¶26

injuries in the said accident. Respondent No.3 was the registered owner of lorry No.KA-20-388.

¶27

The appellant claimed that Lorry No.KA-06 S 1688 was insured with respondent No.2 and Lorry No.KA-20-388 was insured with respondent No.4 as on the date of the said accident. He further claimed that the accident occurred when he was transporting the borewell drilling iron pipes on the instruction of respondent No.1 from Kadri to Shivmogga in Lorry No.KA-20-388. Thus he claimed that the accident arose out of the employment and occurred during the course of the employment. He further claimed that at the time of the accident, the first respondent had employed him on daily wages of Rs.200/- and allowance of Rs.50/due to the accident he had suffered permanent physical disability resulting in total loss of earning capacity. Thus he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with 12% interest from the respondents under Section 22 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

¶28

M.F.A.NO.7294/2011

¶29

¶30

Before the Commissioner, respondent Nos.1 and 3 did not appear and contest the matter. Respondent Nos.2 and 4 contested the matter denying the jural relationship, occurrence of the accident during the course of employment and their liability. They further claimed that vehicle No.KA-06 S 1688 and KA-20-388 were not insured with them.

¶31

In support of the claim petition, the claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and Dr.Karigowdar as PW.2. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 examined their officials.

¶32

The Commissioner on hearing the parties by the impugned award awarded compensation of Rs.3,31,506/- payable by the first respondent with interest.

¶33

So far as respondent Nos.2 and 4 the Commissioner held that the claimant failed to prove that the said vehicles were insured with respondent Nos.2 and 4. So far as respondent No.3 the Commissioner

¶34

M.F.A.NO.7294/2011

¶35

¶36

held that claimant was not employed under respondent No.3, therefore, he was not liable to pay compensation.

¶37

The Commissioner assessed the monthly wages of the appellant at Rs.3,000/-, loss of earning capacity at 100%, applied 184.17 factor and arrived at the compensation of Rs.3,31,506/-. Aggrieved by the exoneration of respondent Nos.2 and 4 and assessing the wages at Rs.3,000/- per month, the claimant has preferred the above appeal.

¶38

This Court admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law.

¶39

i) Whether the Commissioner acted contrary to the material on record in assessing the wages of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month ?

¶40

ii) Whether the Commissioner was right in exonerating respondent Nos.2 and 4 from the liability of indemnifying the damages ?

¶41

M.F.A.NO.7294/2011

¶42

¶43

Reg. question No.1

¶44

The claimant in his claim petition as well as in his deposition before the Commissioner contended that at the time of accident he was working under the first respondent in his lorry as helper on daily wage of Rs.200/- and allowance of Rs.50/-, therefore, his monthly wage was Rs.6,000/-. Respondent No.1 did not contest the claim petition. Even the other respondents did not dispute the employment of the claimant or the rate of the wages. Under such circumstances, the rate of wages stood proved by the pleadings and evidence of the claimant.

¶45

The Commissioner in the award gives absolutely no reasons to reduce the monthly earning of the claimant from Rs.6000/- to Rs.3,000/- that too when the employer did not dispute the said fact. Therefore, the Commissioner acted contrary to the material on record in assessing the wages of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month.

¶46

M.F.A.NO.7294/2011

¶47

¶48

As per Section 4 Explanation II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 the monthly wages of the appellant shall be taken as Rs.4,000/-. As per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act the compensation has to be awarded at 60% of the monthly wages of the injured workman which comes to Rs.2,400/-. Therefore the compensation works out to Rs.4,42,008/- (2400 X 184.17 X 100/100). The compensation awarded by the Commissioner has to be enhanced to Rs.4,42,008/-. The substantial question of law No.1 is answered accordingly.

¶49

Reg. question No.2.

¶50

Appellant claimed that respondent Nos.2 and 4 were insurer of the lorry bearing No.KA.06-S 188 and KA-20-388 respectively and respondent Nos.1 and 3 being registered owners were liable to pay compensation and respondent Nos.2 and 4 were liable to indemnify the said damages.

¶51

Respondent Nos.2 and 4 disputed the

¶52

coverage of the aforesaid vehicle under any policies

¶53

M.F.A.NO.7294/2011

¶54

¶55

issued by them. The appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the lorries were insured with respondent Nos.2 and 4.

¶56

Apart from that, the appellant was not employed under respondent No.3. Therefore, respondent No.3 paying compensation to the appellant and consequently respondent No.4 indemnifying the said damages does not arise.

¶57

Respondent No.1 has not challenged the order of Commissioner exonerating respondent Nos.2 and 4. Since the claimant failed to prove that lorry bearing No.KA-06 S 1688 was insured with respondent No.2, this Court does not find any error in Commissioner exonerating respondent Nos.2 and 4. Substantial question of law No.2 is answered accordingly.

¶58

For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Commissioner is modified enhancing the award amount

¶59

M.F.A.NO.7294/2011

¶60

¶61

from Rs.3,31,506/- to Rs.4,42,208/-. Rest of the award

¶62

is maintained.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

akc

Sri. Malatesh v. Sri. Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Malatesh v. Sri. Ravikumar

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

Mr.Thomas Louis Xavier Vs the Chairperson

Smt a R Sarvamangalamma Vs T D Varun Sagar

Deepak K Joshi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt.Ammayyamma Vs Smt.R.Rajeshwari

H D Sudheendra Rao Vs M/S N G E F Ltd.

Biliyappa Gowda Vs M/S Konark Hiring Service