Partly allowed

Sri K N Rangaswamy v. Sri P M Chandra Shekar

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2021MFA/7172/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court modified the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in an Employees Compensation Act case. It reduced the future loss of earnings from the Tribunal's assessment to Rs.2,30,568 by adjusting the disability percentage to 25% and recalculating based on the statutory average wage under Section 4(1-B).

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs.2,72,054 with interest at 12% per annum from 32 days post-accident till realization; Insurance Company to deposit amount within 90 days.

Sri K N Rangaswamy Vs Sri P M Chandra Shekar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^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 7172 OF 2018 (WC) c/w

¶8

MISCELLENEOUS FIRST APPEAL 7769 of 2019

¶9

In MFA 7172 of 2018

¶10

BETWEEN

¶11

Sri K N Rangaswamy S/o Narasimhappa Aged about 38 years R/at Doddabanagere Village Chikkabanagere Post Sira Taluk Tumkur District-572 101.

¶12

…. Appellant

¶13

(By Shri Suresh M Latur, Advocate)

¶14

AND

¶15

Sri P M Chandra Shekar S/o Sri Malleshappa R/at No.24, Kondapura Village Arasikere Post Pavagada Taluk Tumkur District-572 101.

¶16

¶17

The Regional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 5^th and 6^th Floor, Krishi Bhavan Nrupathunga Road Hudson Circle Bengaluru-560 001.

¶18

….Respondents

¶19

(By Shri Krishna Kishore, Advocate for R2; Vide order dated 05.02.2021 notice to R1 is dispensed with)

¶20

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, against the judgment and award dated 13.07.2018 passed in ECA No.38 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Judge and XXVIII ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, partly allowing the claim petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶21

In MFA 7769 of 2019

¶22

BETWEEN The Regional Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office 5^th and 6^th Floor Krishi Bhavan Hudson Circle Nrupathunga Road Bengaluru-560 001. Rep. by its Deputy Manager Mr. T N Adisesh.

¶23

…. Appellant

¶24

(By Shri Krishna Kishore, Advocate)

¶25

AND

¶26

Sri K N Rangaswamy Aged about 40 years

¶27

¶28

S/o Narasimhappa R/of Doddabanagere village Chikkabanagere Post Sira Taluk Tumkur District-572 137.

¶29

Sri P M Chandra Shekar Major in age S/o Sri Malleshappa R/at No.24, Kondapura Village Arasikere Post Pavagada Taluk Tumkur District-561 202.

¶30

….Respondents

¶31

(By Shri Suresh M Latur, Advocate for R1; R2 served)

¶32

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of Employees Compensation Act, against the judgment and award dated 13.07.2018 on the file of the ECA No.38 of 2016 on the file of the II Additional Judge and XXVIII ACMM, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs.3,74,286/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident i.e, 14.02.2016 till realisation.

¶33

These Miscellaneous First appeals coming on for Admission, this day, INDIRESH J., delivered the following:

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

Though these appeals are listed for Admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are taken up for final hearing and are disposed of by this common judgment.

¶36

¶37

These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 13^th July, 2018 passed in ECA No.38 of 2016 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru. MFA 7172 of 2018 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation; and MFA 7769 of 2019 is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground of liability and quantum of compensation.

¶38

For the sake of convenience, the parties in these appeals are referred to with their status and rank before the Tribunal.

¶39

It is the case of the claimant that on 14^th February, 2016, at about 2.30 pm, he was driving the Eicher vehicle bearing registration No.KA-06/C-702 belonging to respondent No.1, and when the vehicle reached Bogaaku Company near Jinkalapally village, Shivar, Itikyala mandal, Mahabubnagar District, at that time buffaloes, suddenly, came across the road and in the act of avoiding collusion, he lost control over the vehicle and as a result, the vehicle turtle down to the left side of the road, and the impact was, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the incident, he was taken to

¶40

¶41

Kurnool Government Hospital and for further treatment he was shifted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Bengaluru wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 15^th February to 21^st March, 2016. As the claimant sustained disability and was not able to do any work, he filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act’). In the claim petition it is stated that the petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and also getting batta of Rs.100/- per day.

¶42

On service of notice, respondents appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 did not file objection statement. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent has denied the relationship of master and servant between the claimant and the respondent No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. Based on pleadings, the Tribunal formulated issues for its consideration. In order to prove his case, claimant got himself examined as PW1 and examined two more witnesses

¶43

¶44

as PW2 and PW3 and got marked documents as Exhibits P1 to 16. Respondent has examined the Administrative Officer as RW1 and no documents were marked. The Tribunal, after considering the material evidence on record, has allowed the claim petition in part and awarded compensation of Rs.3,74,286/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of incident till the date of deposit. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed MFA 7172 of 2018 seeking enhancement in compensation; and the respondent-Insurance Company has filed MFA 7769 of 2019 and the challenge is on liability and quantum.

¶45

We have heard Sri Suresh M Latur, learned counsel appearing for the claimant and Sri Krishna Kishore, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company.

¶46

It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the claimant that the Tribunal has not considered the income as claimed by the claimant. The claimant was earning Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.100/- per day as batta. The said aspect of the matter is disbelieved by the Tribunal and has taken

¶47

¶48

the income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/- per month, which requires interference in this appeal. He further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads also calls for enhancement.

¶49

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. He further submits that though the claim petition is preferred under the Employees Compensation Act, the Tribunal has awarded compensation, as if the claim is made under the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, he submits that Tribunal misconstrued the facts and passed award without application of mind.

¶50

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the following substantial question of law would arise for consideration in these appeals:

¶51

i) Whether the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal requires any modification?

¶52

¶53

ii) What order?

¶54

We have given our anxious consideration to the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained injuries in the accident that took place on 14^th February, 2016 and suffered disability. The claim petition is filed under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923. The Tribunal, considering the deposition of PW1 that in his cross-examination he has admitted the that he is the owner of vehicle, has recorded the finding that the claimant was working under respondent No.1 therein and the held that accident occurred during and in the course of employment by the claimant with the respondent No.1 and accordingly, answered issues 1 and 2 in the affirmative. The same is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this appeal. However, we find force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondentInsurance Company that the Tribunal, while awarding compensation to the claimant has awarded the same as is awarded in the claim petition made under Section 166 of the

¶55

¶56

Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the claimant under Section 4(1-B) of the Employees Compensation Act and taking into consideration the Notification issued by the Central Government dated 31^st May, 2010 and the same is proper. As per records the claimant was aged 36 years as on the date of accident and the relevant factor applicable is 192.14. The testimony of PW2 reveals that the claimant sustained 42.6% disability to the limb and taking into considering the injuries sustained by the claimant as per Exhibit-P12 wound certificate, we are of the view, in the ends of justice, the disability be assessed at 25%. Accordingly, the calculation towards loss future earning due to disability would be Rs.2,30,568/(Rs.8,000/- X 60% x 25% x 192.14). The Amount of Rs.43,486/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses is retained. The claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,74,054/-. Accordingly, the substantial questions framed above is answered against the claimant.

¶57

¶58

In the result, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed and the appeal preferred by the claimant stands dismissed. In the result, we pass the following:

¶59

O R D E R

¶60

i) Miscellaneous First Appeal 7172 of 2018 stands dismissed;

¶61

ii) Miscellaneous First Appeal 7769 of 2019 is allowed in part;

¶62

iii) The total compensation awarded by the Tribunal is modified and reduced to Rs.2,72,054/(Rupees two lakh seventy two thousand fifty four only) as against Rs.3,74,386/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from after 30 days from the date of the accident till realisation;

¶63

iv) The portion of the order of the Tribunal inasmuch as liability and disbursement, remains intact;

¶64

v) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount determined as aforesaid before the Tribunal within 90 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment and order;

¶65

¶66

vi) The modified compensation shall be disbursed in terms of the order of the Tribunal;

¶67

vii) Draw modified award accordingly;

¶68

viii) The Registry shall transfer the amount in deposit along with the original records to the jurisdictional Tribunal forthwith. The amount in deposit made by the insurer, if found in excess, the same shall be refunded to the insurer.

¶69

Sd/JUDGE

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

lnn

Sri K N Rangaswamy v. Sri P M Chandra Shekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K N Rangaswamy v. Sri P M Chandra Shekar

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 a O Nagaraj Vs Nil

K B Chandrashekar Vs B v Kumaraiah

Smt. Swapna Reddy Vs Sri. K N Chandra Reddy

Sri. Nanne Jan M Vs Sri. Raju B M

Smt Hajira Bi Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt Bi Bi Hajira Vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd.