Allowed

Mohammed Hayath v. Abdul Latif

Karnataka HC28 Jun 2021MFA/6907/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against compensation order under Workmen Compensation Act. High Court held injury not schedule injury, upheld 20% disability but increased income wage to Rs.8,000/- per month. Award enhanced from Rs.1,01,659/- to Rs.2,11,975/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed in part; compensation enhanced to Rs.2,11,975/- with interest at 12% p.a. Insurance company directed to deposit amount.

Mohammed Hayath Vs Abdul Latif — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

M.F.A.NO.6907/2013 (MV)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MOHAMMED HAYATH S/O MAHABOOB PEER AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/O 3^RD CROSS, TIPPU NAGAR CHANNAGIRI TOWN DAVANAGERE DISTRICT – 577 213.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. A HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

ABDUL LATIF S/O ABDUL RASOOL, MAJOR R/O No.26, 1^ST MAIN, 1^ST CROSS GURAPPANAPALYA BANGALORE – 560 076 (OWNER OF THE LORRY BERING REG. No.KA-010AD-1288)

¶13

THE MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO, LTD., DAVANAGERE – 577 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. O MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 R-1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

¶17

THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND AWARD DATED 05.04.2013 PASED IN WCA No.KAA,AA.DHA/KHANAPA/CR-17/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING THE ENHANCEMENT FOR COMPENSATION.

¶18

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

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

Though the matter is listed for admission today, with the

¶21

consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

¶22

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere District, Davanagere (for short ‘the Commissioner) dated 05.04.2013 vide order No.WCA.No.KAA.AA.DHA/KHANAPA/CR/-17/2012, questioning the quantum of compensation.

¶23

¶24

The parties are referred to as per their original

¶25

rankings before the Commissioner to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

¶26

The factual matrix of the case is that the accident had occurred on 18.05.2011 and the claimant was aged about 28 years at the time of the accident. He suffered the comminuted fracture of upper third of shaft of right radius (both bones of the right fore arm). The claimant, in order to substantiate his claim, examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor as P.W.2. The doctor assessed the disability at 25% to the whole body whereas the Commissioner has taken the disability at 20% and the income at Rs.4,000/- per month considering 60% of his salary and so also applied the relevant factor at 211.79% and assessed the compensation. Being aggrieved by the said order, the claimant is before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the claimant would vehemently

¶28

contend that Commissioner has committed an error in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month when he was also earning an amount of Rs.100/- as a batta, at the time of the

¶29

¶30

accident by working as a cleaner. Taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month is meagre and hence, it requires interference of this Court. Even though the doctor P.W.2 deposed that the claimant suffered the disability to the extent of 25% to the whole body, the Commissioner was pleased to take 20% as the disability, which is erroneous.

¶31

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the Commissioner has rightly taken the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month and assessed the disability at 20% considering the injuries sustained by the claimant and the comminuted fracture of upper third of shaft of right radius (both bones of the right fore arm) suffered by the claimant. Hence, it is not a case for enhancement.

¶32

Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel

¶33

for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondentInsurance Company, the points that would arise for the consideration of this Court are:-

¶34

(i) Whether the Commissioner has committed an error in not awarding the just and

¶35

¶36

reasonable compensation taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month and the disability at 20% by overlooking the evidence of the doctor and whether it requires interference of this Court ?

¶37

(ii) What order?

¶38

Points No.(i) and (ii):-

¶39

Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries of Comminuted fracture. The doctor has also been examined as P.W.2 and he also assessed the disability of the claimant at 25%. However, the Commissioner discussing in detail the material available on record, while answering issue No.3, though taken note of the evidence of the doctor, considered the disability at 20%. It is an admitted fact that the injuries suffered by the claimant are not the schedule injuries and he has suffered the fracture of right hand, that too, comminuted fracture. When such being the case, the contention

¶40

¶41

of the claimant that the Commissioner erred in considering the disability at 20%, cannot be accepted.

¶42

The fact that the comminuted fracture of upper third

¶43

of shaft of right hand not in dispute. Hence, I am of the opinion that the injury suffered by the claimant is not the schedule injury and based on the evidence of P.W.2, the Commissioner has assessed the disability at 20%. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. However, taking the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- per month by the Commissioner while assessing the compensation, is erroneous. The Workmen’s Compensation Act was amended in the year 2010 i.e., on 31.05.2010 and the Central Government has also issued the notification fixing the wages as Rs.8,000/- per month. Under the circumstances, and having taken note of the fact that the accident occurred subsequent to the said amendment, it is appropriate to take the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶44

Having taken the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month and considering 60% of the salary of the

¶45

¶46

claimant and so also taking the relevant factor at 211.79 and disability at 20%, the compensation is reassessed as follows:-

¶47

Rs.8,000x60%x211.79x20%=Rs.2,03,318/-

¶48

An amount of Rs.8,657/- is ordered as compensation

¶49

towards medical expenses. Hence, in all the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,11,975/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

¶50

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶51

following:-

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶54

(ii) The judgment and order passed by the Commissioner is modified by granting compensation of Rs.2,11,975/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of one month after the accident till realization as against Rs.1,01,659/-.

¶55

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

¶56

¶57

(iv) Registry to transmit the Trial Court Records to the concerned Commissioner, forthwith.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

PYR

Mohammed Hayath v. Abdul Latif

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Hayath v. Abdul Latif

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

The Branch Manager Vs Sathish

Divisional Manager Vs Pandu Vakode

Divisional Manager Vs Ahalesh

The Branch Manager Vs Arun Kumar

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Shobha P

The Claim Manager Vs Sri Mallaiah