Partly allowed

Shanthamma v. B Panchappa

Karnataka HC24 Jun 2021MFA/1686/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal partly, directing the insurance company to deposit enhanced workmen's compensation. The court held that the Labour Commissioner erred in ignoring a post-accident notification fixing minimum wages and ordered an increase in quantum and funeral expenses.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.7,34,980 including funeral expenses, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident.

Shanthamma Vs B Panchappa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

M.F.A.NO.1686/2013 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SHANTHAMMA

¶9

W/O LATE MANJUNATH @ MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶10

2 . KUMARI AKSHATHA D/O LATE MANJUNATH @ MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS

¶11

3 . MASTER KARTHIK D/O LATE MANJUNATH @ MANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 2 YEARS

¶12

(APPELLANT NOS.2 AND 3 BEING MINORS, REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER)

¶13

ALL ARE R/O KOMARANAHALLI VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGARE DISTRICT … APPELLANTS

¶14

(BY SRI S.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

1 . B. PANCHAPPA BIN LATE B. PUTTAPPA R/O MALEBENNURU VILLAGE HARIHAR TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601

¶17

¶18

2 . THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DAVANAGERE-577 001 … RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. MANJULA N.TEJASWI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2012 PASSED IN WCA.NO.23/2012 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶21

THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH ‘VIDEO CONFERENCE’ THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

Though the matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶24

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 10.12.2012, passed by the Labour Officer and the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere District, Davanagere, in WC No.23 of 2012 granting compensation of Rs.3,71,264/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from one month from the date of accident till deposit.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently contend that the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,095/- in view of the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act though the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month and an amount of Rs.200/- as batta per day. In the appeal, the substantial question of law was raised as to whether the Commissioner was right in holding that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.4,095/- per month as wages as on the date of the accident.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his arguments, would vehemently contend that the accident had taken place on 22.12.2011 and that on 18.1.2010, the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 was amended deleting the Explanation (ii) of Section 4 and inserted Section 4(1)(b). To that effect, notification is also issued by the Central Government on 31.05.2010 fixing the wages as Rs.8,000/- from the date of the said notification. Hence, the Commissioner has committed an error in taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,095/-. The Commissioner has also not awarded an amount of

¶28

¶29

Rs.5,000/- on the head of ‘funeral expenses’. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶30

In support of his arguments, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 16.01.2021 passed in M.F.A.No.8003/2019 (ECA) between The Officer, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Mumtaz B . Learned counsel relying upon this judgment would contend that this Court considering the proviso to Section 4(1)(b) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 has come to the conclusion that the same is applicable to the facts of the instant case and accordingly, dismissed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would vehemently contend that the Commissioner while assessing the income of the deceased, specifically mentioned the notification in respect of the Minimum Wages Act and has rightly taken the income at Rs.4,095/-. There is no any bar to consider the income in respect of Minimum Wages Act. Learned counsel also not disputes the fact that the Act has been amended in the year 2010. However, he

¶32

¶33

would contend that the Commissioner, relying upon the earlier notification, has rightly awarded the compensation. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court.

¶34

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:-

¶35

“1. Whether the Commissioner has committed an error in holding that the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.4,095/- as wages as on the date of the accident?

¶36

2. What order?

¶37

Point No.1:-

¶38

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, there is no dispute with regard to the date of the accident is concerned that took place on 22.12.2011. The Commissioner has rendered the decision on 10.12.2012 taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,095/- per month as wages. There is no dispute with regard to applying the relevant factors but the only dispute is with regard to considering the income of the deceased.

¶39

¶40

I have already pointed out that there is no dispute with regard to the notification dated 31.05.2010 issued by the Central Government and it is also not in dispute that the amendment was brought into the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘the Act’) on 18.01.2010, which is prior to the date of the accident and the notification issued is also prior to the date of the accident. When the Act has been amended in the year 2010 and consequent upon the same, the notification was issued by the Central Government, the Commissioner ought to have taken into consideration the notification dated 31.05.2010 as contended by the appellants’ counsel.

¶41

Having considered the notification dated 31.05.2010, the age of the deceased as 41 years at the time of the accident, and as stated supra, that there is no dispute with regard to the factors being applied, the compensation is assessed as follows:-

¶42

Rs.8,000x50%=Rs.4,000/Rs.4000x181.37=Rs.7,25,480/-.

¶43

Thus, the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.7,25,480/as against Rs.3,71,264/awarded by the Commissioner since the Court has to consider the notification

¶44

¶45

which is issued prior to the accident and also the amendment being made prior to the accident. The judgment of this Court passed in M.F.A.No.8003/2019 is also aptly applicable to the case on hand for the reasons that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company has been dismissed.

¶46

Apart from that, the claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs.9,500/- towards ‘funeral expenses’. Hence, I answer point No.1 as partly affirmative awarding an amount of Rs.7,34,980/-.

¶47

Point No.2:-

¶48

In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:-

¶49

ORDER

¶50

(i) The appeal is allowed in part by granting the compensation of Rs.7,34,980/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of 30 days of the accident.

¶51

(ii) Respondent-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within 6 weeks’ from today.

¶52

¶53

(iii) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.

¶54

Sd/JUDGE

¶55

cp*

Shanthamma v. B Panchappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthamma v. B Panchappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.N.Manjunath Vs H.N.Abishekgowda

Sri N B Vishwanath Vs Sri B Rajesh

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Reshma

Smt Nayana N. Pai @ Rajeevi Vs Sri Sanjeeva Shetty

Smt Monthi N Pai Vs Sri Sanjeeva Shetty

Sri.Sandeep.a Vs State by D.J.Halli Police Station