The Karnataka High Court dismissed an appeal by the father of a deceased workman against a compensation award. The court held the appellant failed to prove dependency on the deceased's earnings as required by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Thus, he was not entitled to any share.
Appellant was not awarded any part of the compensation; appeal dismissed.
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 25TH DAY OF JULY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8855/2015 (WC)
BETWEEN
SRI.B.ANNU S/O. PORA MAISTRY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT. ARASINAGUPPE MALLENAHALLI POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK - 577 101
... APPELLANT
(BY MRS.ANUSHA.A., ADVOCATE FOR MR.A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE)
AND
2
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE R/AT MAVINAHALLI ARASINAGUPPE MALLENAHALLI POST CHIKKAMAGALUR TALUK - 577 101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY MR.RAVISH BENNI ADVOCATE FOR R2) R1, R3 TO R5 ARE SERVED.
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1)(a) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 15.06.2015 PASSED IN ECA NO.41/2014 ON THE FILE OF TEH ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
This appeal is at the instance of the father of the deceased-Ramesha who met with an employment related accident and died while working as a workman under respondent No.1, which had insured risk of accident with respondent No.2. The only grievance of the appellant herein is that while the judgment and award dated 15.06.2015 in ECA No.41/2014 passed by I Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Chikkamagaluru, a compensation of `4,16,294/- (Rupees Four lakh sixteen thousand two hundred ninety four only) was awarded with interest thereon for the death of the deceased, he was not awarded any part of the compensation, even though he is the father of the deceased.
4
owners of M/s.Girikhan Estate of the first respondent., insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, accidentally fell-off from a tree while working as such and died on 25.01.2010. Subsequently, the appellant filed an impleading application, which came to be allowed and he was impleaded as claimant No.4 before the learned Court below. After enquiry, learned Court below allowed the claim petition in part and awarded a sum of `4,16,294/(Rupees Four lakh sixteen thousand two hundred ninety four only) but he denied share in compensation to the appellant herein who is the father of the deceased.
strenuously contends that the learned Court below has committed serious error of law in not considering the case of the appellant herein for awarding compensation amount on account of it erroneously placing reliance on Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Her contention is that the learned Court below ought to have taken note of the
5
specific provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, in order to seek light as to who are the dependents of the deceased for awarding compensation under the Act and in this behalf she draws the attention of the Court to Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(b) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. She submits that as per the same and since the factum of the appellant being the father of the deceased not being in dispute, learned Court below ought to have awarded share in the compensation to the appellant out of the compensation awarded by it. She therefore submits that the appeal is entitled to be allowed and appellant is also entitled to the award of a portion of the compensation quantified by the Learned Court below.
submissions made and also pleadings and evidence and the other records produced before the learned court below.
6
the Act is required to be referred to in little greater detail. It reads as follows:
Definition:(1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context,
[***]
(b) "Commissioner" means a Commissioner for [Employee's] Compensation appointed under Section 20;
(c) "compensation" means compensation as provided for by this Act;
[(d) "dependant" means any of the following relatives of deceased [employee], namely:-
(i) a widow, a minor [legitimate or adopted] son, an unmarried [legitimate or adopted] daughter or a widowed mother; and
(ii) if wholly dependant on the earnings of the [employee] at the time of his death, a son or a daughter who has attained the age of 18 years and who is infirm;
7
(iii) if wholly or in part dependant on the earning of the [employee] at the time of his death,
(a) a widower,
(b) a parent other than a widowed mother,
(c) a minor illegitimate son, an unmarried illegitimate daughter or a daughter [legitimate or illegitimate or adopted] if married and a minor or if widowed and a minor,
(d) a minor brother or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor,
(e) a widowed daughter-in-law,
(f) a minor child of a pre-deceased son,
(g) a minor child of a pre-deceased daughter where no parent of the child is alive, or
(h) a paternal grandparent if no parent of the [employee] is alive]
Explanation:- For the purposes of sub-clause (ii) and items (f) and (g) of sub-clause (iii), reference to a son, daughter or child include an adopted son, daughter or child respectively.
8
9
had taken a second wife and been living separately with her since 25 years prior to the unfortunate accident. Records does not show and learned counsel for appellant also does not point out that this appellant had controverted the said assertion made in the evidence of the claimant No.1-Smt.Seethamma.
9. In that view of the matter, the appellant has
not made out a case to receive share in the compensation awarded by the learned Court below.
Accordingly, this Miscellaneous First Appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
GVP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the father of the deceased was entitled to a share in the compensation awarded under the Workmen's Compensation Act for lack of payment.
Whether the appellant had to prove dependency on the earnings of the deceased to claim a share in the compensation.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
B. ANNU S/O. PORA MAISTRY
MANAGER, M/S. GIRIKHAN ESTATE
BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
SEETHAMMA W/O. ANU
REETHA D/O. ANNU
SRI MONAPPA S/O. ANNU
P. KRISHNA BHAT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
