Partly allowed

Sri Ashoka G v. Prop H C Nagarajaiah

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2021MFA/544/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A First Appeal against a lower tribunal's award claiming enhancement of compensation for a driver injured in a fatal accident. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, enhancing the total compensation to Rs. 7,81,960/- based on a 50% permanent disability calculation.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs. 7,81,960/- with interest at 12% per annum from expiry of 30 days from the date of accident.

Sri Ashoka G Vs Prop H C Nagarajaiah — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 544 OF 2018 (WC)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

Sri Ashoka G S/o Govindegowda Aged about 27 years R/at Madhuranahalli Village Ramanathapura Hobli Arakalgud Taluk Hassan District-573 102.

¶10

…. Appellant

¶11

(By Shri Ravisha M G, Advocate)

¶12

AND

¶13

Prop: H C Nagarajaiah M/s. Sea Bird Tourist Center No.78, Nagaraju Complex Hosur Main Road Bengaluru-560 068.

¶14

The Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd B M Road Hassan-573 201.

¶15

….Respondents

¶16

¶17

(By Shri K Suresh, Advocate for R2; Vide order dated 23.06.2021 notice to R1 is dispensed with)

¶18

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, against the judgment and award 11.10.2017 in ECA No.01 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Arakalgud, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶19

This Miscellaneous First appeal coming on for admission, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

This appeal is filed against the judgment and award dated 11^th October, 2017 in ECA No.01 of 2016 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Arkalgud (for short, hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to with their status and rank before the trial Court.

¶23

It is the case of the claimant that on 13^th August, 2015, while he was working as a driver in the first respondent vehicle and when the vehicle which was being driven by him from Bombay to Bengaluru, dashed against the opposite goods vehicle near Vantamuri Ghat, Belagavi. It is further stated in the claim

¶24

¶25

petition that on account of the said accident, claimant suffered permanent disability and become unable to discharge his duties as a driver and as such, the claimant filed ECA No.01 of 2016 before the trial Court seeking compensation.

¶26

On service of notice, both the respondents entered appearance and filed a detailed written statement contending that the claimant is not entitled for compensation. However, the first respondent admits that the claimant was a lorry driver with him. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings on record, framed issues for its consideration. Claimant was examined as PW1 and examined two more witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and produced 77 documents and same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P77. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. The trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and award dated 11^th October, 2017 allowed the claim petition in part and thereby awarded Rs.6,44,684/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 13^th September, 2015 till realisation. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

¶27

¶28

by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶29

We have heard Sri Ravish M.G., learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and Sri K. Suresh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

¶30

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the quantum of compensation awarded by the trial Court is meager and the same requires enhancement in this appeal.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the award passed by the trial Court is based on records and the same is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we have carefully examined the finding recorded by the trial Court. In the circumstances of the case, following substantial question of law is required to be answered:

¶33

“Whether the Claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation in this appeal?”

¶34

¶35

Perusal of the impugned judgment and award indicate that the claimant sustained grievous injuries, particularly, amputation of right leg below knee, pursuant to the accident. Respondent No.1 admits the relationship of employer and employee. The claimant was aged about 27 years as on the date of accident and perusal of the testimony of PW2-Doctor would indicate that the claimant sustained 25% permanent disability to the whole body but no loss of earning capacity was assessed. In this regard, we have noticed that the claimant has sustained amputation to right leg below the knee and therefore, as per the schedule annexed to Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, the disability would be 50% and therefore, same is arrived at, to determine the quantum of compensation. Claimant has produced Exhibit P8-salary certificate issued by Proprietor M/s. Seabird Tourist Centre showing his salary at Rs.10,000/- per month and batta of Rs.2,000/- per trip. However, in view of the notification dated 31^st May, 2010 issued by the Central Government under Section 4(1-B) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, the income of the claimant is to be considered as Rs.8,000/- per month and 60% of the monthly

¶36

¶37

wages is to be considered with relevant factor to assess the compensation to be awarded to the claimant. Accordingly, the monthly income of the claimant would be Rs.4,800/-. In the result, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.5,12,560/- (Rs.4,800/- less 50% x 213.57). The claimant is entitled for medical expenses of Rs.1,69,400/- as awarded by the trial Court. Further, taking into consideration the testimony of PW2-Doctor, we are of the view that the claimant is entitled for additional sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards artificial leg. Hence, the total compensation to which the claimant is entitled would be Rs.7,81,960/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from expiry of 30 days from the date of accident. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. Hence, the following:

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

i) The appeal is allowed in part;

¶40

ii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and enhanced to Rs.7,81,960/- (Rupees Seven lakh eighty one thousand nine hundred sixty only) as against Rs.6,44,684/-, which shall carry

¶41

¶42

interest a the rate of 12% per annum after thirty days from the date of the accident, till its realisation.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

lnn

Sri Ashoka G v. Prop H C Nagarajaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Ashoka G v. Prop H C Nagarajaiah

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

Sri S.N.Narasimha Murthy @ Murthy Vs Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd.

Sri. Shiva Kumar B @ Vs Manjunath v

Sri.H.C. Kumaraswamy Vs Special Land

P R Gopalakrishna Reddy Vs Shri Veerbhadraiah

Venugopal Vs N C Maruthish

The Divisional Manager Vs Gouthami