Partly allowed

Sri. Muthuraj v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2022MFA/562/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the injured driver, holding that the Labour Court erred in assessing disability at 15% instead of 22%. The quantum of compensation for loss of earning capacity was reassessed, and the appeal was partially allowed to grant enhanced compensation.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.69,183/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization; appeal allowed in part.

Sri. Muthuraj Vs Reliance General Insurance Company… — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶6

M.F.A.No.562/2018 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MUTHURAJ, S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.676, 2^ND FLOOR, 61^ST CROSS ROAD, 5^TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. GIRI MALLAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, EAST WING, 5^TH FLOOR, NO.28, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

SRI. ANAND KUMAR K.C., S/O CHUNCHAIAH, MAJOR, (AGE NOT KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT), R/O NO. 325, 1^ST ‘D’ CROSS, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 8^TH BLOCK,

¶14

¶15

KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶16

… RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. ASHOK N.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 08.03.2021)

¶18

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 13.09.2017 PASSED IN ECA NO.165/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE X ADDITIONAL JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES & XXXV ACMM, EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU, (SCCH-16), ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 30(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'WC Act' for short), challenging the judgment and award passed in ECA No.165/2015 dated 13.09.2017 by the Court of Small Causes and XXXV ACMM and Employees Compensation Commissioner, Bengaluru (SCCH-16) seeking

¶22

enhancement of the compensation.

¶23

¶24

The undisputed facts are that the claimant

¶25

was working as a driver of Swaraj Mazda bearing No.KA01-AB-9996 under respondent No.2. The claimant has sustained injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 16.01.2015 at about 11.00 a.m. when he was proceeding towards Kollegal between the vehicles i.e., swaraj mazda bearing No.KA-01-AB-9996 and KSRTC bus bearing No.KA-10-F-0212. Therefore, the claimant has filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation.

¶26

The Labour Court after considering the facts and circumstances and evidence on record, has granted a compensation of Rs.1,48,300/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till the date of realization.

¶27

Being aggrieved by the lesser quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Labour Court is meagre one and prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1-Insurance Company submitted that the compensation awarded by the Labour Court is just and proper and therefore, prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶31

PW.2-Doctor stated that the claimant has suffered 22% of permanent physical disability towards whole body and has suffered compound fracture of both bones of right leg. Therefore, the Labour Court has committed an error in taking only 15% of disability without assigning any proper reasons. The claimant is a driver by profession, has suffered fracture of right tibia and fibula bones, certainly, it affects the profession of the claimant. Therefore, as per the principles of law laid down in the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar

¶32

¶33

Vs. Ajay Kumar reported in 2011 ACJ 1(SC), it is just and proper to take functional disability of the claimant at 22% as per the evidence of the doctor. The claimant was

¶34

aged 31 years as on the date of the accident. Then, the relevant factor is 205.95. Accordingly, the loss of earning capacity due to disability is hereby re-assessed and quantified as under:

¶35

Rs.8,000 x 60% x 22% x 205.95 = Rs.2,17,483/-

¶36

Accordingly, a sum of Rs.2,17,483/- is awarded

¶37

under the head 'loss of earning capacity due to disability'.

¶38

The Labour Court has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,48,300/-, but the

¶39

appellant/claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.2,17,483/- . Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.69,183/- (Rs.2,17,483 - Rs.1,48,300).

¶40

¶41

9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶44

ii. The judgment and award passed by the Labour Court in ECA No.165/2015 is hereby modified holding the claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.69,183/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of accident till its realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal.

¶45

iii. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 53 days in filing the appeal.

¶46

iv. Costs made easy.

¶47

v. Draw award accordingly.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri. Muthuraj v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Muthuraj v. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd.

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

Premamma Vs H P Chandrappa

Smt K M Yashodamma Vs Sri Richard Wilson

Smt K M Yashodamma Vs Sri Richard Wilson

Smt Rathi K G Vs Sri Nithish

Ningamma Vs M/S United Ins Co. Ltd.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Bikya Nayak