The High Court allowed the workman's compensation appeal in part, correcting the Commissioner's understated income limit and fully awarding verified medical bills. Total compensation enhanced from Rs.67,284 to Rs.1,07,764 with interest.
Compensation enhanced to Rs.1,07,764 with 12% interest; Insurance Company directed to deposit the amount within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
M.F.A.NO.227/2014 (WC)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATH S/O. SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RAJANALLI, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601.
… APPELLANT
(BY MS. SHRUTHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VINAYA KEERTHY M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . MAHADEVAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA (OWNER OF SWARAJ MAZDA LORRY NO.KA-36/T-1927) RAJANALLI, HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 601.
2 . THE AUTHORISED OFFICER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BENGALURU-560 002. … RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.01.2013 PASSED IN
2
WCA.NO.SOM/KA.A.DA/KA.NA.PA.49/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, DAVANGERE DISTRICT, DAVANGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND FURTHER SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 29.01.2013 passed in WCA No. KA.A.DA/KA.NA.PA/C.R49/2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Workmen Compensation Commissioner, Davanagere (‘the Commissioner’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.
rankings before the Commissioner to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.
the Tribunal is that he met with an accident and sustained
3
grievous injury of fracture to his right leg and sustained 30% permanent disability.
the Commissioner committed an error in taking the income at Rs.3,000/- per month and the Commissioner ought to have taken the income at Rs.4,500/- per month and Rs.50/- bata per day and the compensation awarded is very meager. Learned counsel for the claimant also brought to notice of this Court that, even though the medical bills are produced before the Commissioner, the same is not considered. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
4
perusal of the material available on record, the accident has occurred in the year 2010 and at that time, the income would be Rs.4,000/- per month and the same was not considered by the Commissioner and instead, considered only an amount of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the Commissioner committed an error in taking only 20% disability, even though the Doctor assessed the disability at 30%. But, in the cross-examination of the Doctor, who has been examined as P.W.2, he categorically admitted that, only on his experience and manual, he assessed the disability and admittedly, P.W.2 is not the treated Doctor, who treated the claimant. Hence, the Commissioner has not
5
committed any error in accepting the disability at 20%. However, the Commissioner committed an error in taking the income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Hence, taking the income at Rs.4,000/- per month, the disability at 20% and the relevant factor 186.90, the loss of future income works out to Rs.89,712/- (4,000 x 60/100 x 186.90 x 20/100) as against Rs.67,284/-.
6
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
ST
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Labour Officer erred in accepting a disability percentage lower than the medical advice.
Whether the loss of income calculation was correct based on the actual earnings of the claimant.
Whether the dependent's medical expenses should be included in the compensation award.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
MANJUNATH S/O. SIDDAPPA
MAHADEVAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA
THE AUTHORISED OFFICER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
H.P. SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
