Partly allowed

Sri Vasu v. Hoovinahaklu Estate

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2023MFA/1205/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against workers' compensation award. High Court modified the award by recalculating compensation based on functional disability percentage and statutory notified wages rather than policy wages, enhancing total compensation payable.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.2,99,380/- plus interest; Insurer to pay Rs.1,48,928/-, Employer to pay balance Rs.1,50,452/- plus medical expenses and interest.

Sri Vasu Vs Hoovinahaklu Estate — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1205 OF 2019 (ECA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI VASU, S/O NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT HOOVINAHAKLU ESTATE, HIREGADDE VILLAGE & POST, KOPPA TALUK-577 126, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI K VENKATE GOWDA, ADVOCATE [PH])

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

HOOVINAHAKLU ESTATE, HIREGADDE VILLAGE & POST, KOPPA TALUK-577 126, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, BY ITS OWNER.

¶14

MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CRESCENT COURT, K.M.ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAVEESH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [PH]; R1 - SERVED UNREPRESENTED)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1)(a) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09/11/2018, PASSED IN ECA NO.3/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., N.R.PURA, ITINERATE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶19

AT KOPPA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in ECA.No.3/2018 (ECA No.22/2016) dated 09.11.2018 by the

¶23

Senior Civil Judge, N.R.Pura, itinerate at Koppa, whereby, a sum of Rs.1,89,881/- was awarded as compensation. The petitioner is before this Court seeking enhancement.

¶24

Brief facts of the case are as below:

¶25

On 23.12.2014 at about 12.00 in the afternoon, when he

¶26

was plucking areca crop by climbing the areca tree in the estate belonging to respondent No.1. The areca tree has broken, he fell down and sustained injuries on his both hands, face, head and other parts of the body. It is the further case of the petitioner that immediately he was shifted to N.R.Pura Government Hospital and later, he was admitted at Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga and has taken treatment as inpatient from 23.12.2014 to 28.12.2014.

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶28

It is the further case of the petitioner that he has spent a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and other expenses. The accident had occurred during the course of his employment and out of the employment under the respondent No.1. At the time of accident, he was aged about 34 years and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- per month including all the benefits. He requested the respondents to pay the compensation and they failed. As such, he got issued the legal notice on 11.05.2016 which has been replied by the 1^st respondent admitting the accident and informed him to get the compensation from the insurance company. Hence, the respondents are liable to pay compensation as claimed by him.

¶29

On issuance of notice, both the respondents have appeared through their respective counsels and filed their separate objection statements.

¶30

In the objection statement the respondent No.1 has admitted that the petitioner is the permanent employee under it. It has also contended that the petitioner was treated as permanent worker only in the year 2003. The incident dated 23.12.2014 and nature of the accident have been admitted.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶32

However, it has denied that the petitioner has taken treatment at Nanjappa Hospital, Shivamogga from 23.12.2014 to 28.12.2014. The respondent No.1 also denied the amount spent towards the medical expenses. However, it has contended that the respondent No.1 has incurred an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards the petitioner.

¶33

The respondent No.1 has also contended that the petitioner was getting average monthly wages of Rs.2,500/since he was irregular and also denied the age of the petitioner as 34 years but contended that he was aged 39 years as on the date of the accident. It was further contended that the liability of the respondent No.1 is covered under the Workmen's Compensation Policy issued by the respondent No.2.

¶34

In the objection statement, the respondent No.2 had admitted about the issuance of Workmen's Compensation Policy in favour of the respondent No.1 covering 67 employees of the respondent No.1. It has also admitted that the policy was valid for the period from 04.04.2014 to 04.04.2015 and as on the date of the accident, the policy was valid. It has also contended that the liability of the respondent No.2 is governed

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶36

by the terms and conditions of the policy. As per the wages declared in the insurance policy from April-2014 to March-2015 the total wages is Rs.24,890.15 paise and average monthly wages is Rs.2,074/-. However, the policy is restricted to Rs.6,224/- per annum. Hence, the liability of the respondent could be fixed taking into consideration the said wages. The policy does not cover any payment towards medical expenses. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶37

On the basis of the above pleadings, the appropriate issues have been framed by the Tribunal.

¶38

The petitioner was examined as PW.1 and Exs.P1 to 70 were marked in evidence. The Doctor who has assessed the disability of the petitioner was examined as PW.2. The Manager of the respondent No.1 was examined as RW.1 and Exs.R1 and R2 were marked.

¶39

After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,89,881/- and the respondent No.2 was directed to pay the sum of Rs.81,925/- and the rest of the amount along with interest was saddled upon the respondent No.1.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶42

Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the

¶43

petitioner is before this Court in appeal.

¶44

On hearing the counsel for the appellant, the following substantial question of law has arisen for consideration:

¶45

"Whether the Tribunal is justified in assessing the functional disability of the petitioner as 11% though the PW.2 had stated the disability as 31.2% and failed to consider the wages fixed under Section 4(1) of the EC Act?"

¶46

On issuance of notice, the respondent No.2 has appeared though its counsel and respondent No.1 did not appear despite service of notice. The trial Court records have been secured and heard the arguments by both the sides.

¶47

The fact that the petitioner was an employee of the respondent No.1 and that the respondent No.1 had obtained a workman policy from respondent No.2 is not in dispute. So also, the fact that the petitioner fell down from the areca tree in the estate of the respondent No.1 and sustained injuries is not in dispute.

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶49

The perusal of evidence of PW.2 shows that the petitioner has 31.2% of disability and has issued the certificate as per Ex.P59. It is evident that the petitioner has got 16.2% disability to the left upper limb and 15% disability to the right upper limb. He has stated that the total disability of the whole body was 11%. What has not been considered by the Tribunal is functional disability of the petitioner. It is evident that the disability attributed to the upper limbs will translate to a functional disability of 20%. This is also evident from the schedule to the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as 'EC Act' for short).

¶50

The provisions of Section 4(1)(b) of EC Act show that the notified wages is Rs.8,000/- for the year 2014 as notified in the year 2010. Therefore, it is clear that the Tribunal erred in holding the wages of the employee at Rs.6,224/- pm only on the basis of the premium paid under the policy. Indeed, it is true that the respondent No.2-Insurance Company is liable only to the extent of Rs.6,224/-per employee with reference to the premium paid by the respondent No.1.

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶52

The fact that the insurance company has issued the

¶53

policy covering 49 employees of the respondent No.1 and declared that the annual wages of the 49 permanent employees was Rs.36,60,000/- is not in dispute. In the written statement, the respondent No.1 has admitted this aspect. Therefore, the component of the compensation payable by the respondent No.2 has to be restricted to Rs.6,224/- only. The rest of the component of the compensation has to be borne by the respondent No.1. So also, the respondent No.1 is liable for medical expenses as well as the interest. The age of the petitioner was considered to be 34 years by the Tribunal after detailed discussion in para 18 of the judgment. The said aspect is also not in dispute. The relevant factor for the age of 34 years is '199.40'.

¶54

For above reasons, the compensation to be paid by the respondent No.2-Insurance Company

¶55

as per Section 4(1) of the EC Act is calculated as Rs.6,224/- X 60% X 20% (as disability) X 199.40 (which is the relevant factor) = Rs.1,48,928/-.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶58

The compensation payable by the respondent No.1/employer is calculated as Rs.1,776/- X 60% X 20% (as disability) X 199.40 (which is the relevant factor) = Rs.42,496/-. In addition to this, the respondent No.1 is also liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,07,956/- towards the 'medical expenses' as assessed by the Tribunal, which do not require any intervention. Thus, the respondent No1. is liable to pay Rs.1,50,452/-. Further, the respondent No.1 is also liable to pay the interest on a sum of Rs.1,91,424/- (Rs.1,48,928/- + Rs.42,496/-) and also on medical expenses of Rs.1,07,956/- at the rate of 12% per annum after expiry of one month period from the date of the incident till realization. Hence, the following;

¶59

ORDER

¶60

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶61

(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is modified. The petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.1,91,424/- + Rs.1,07,956/-= Rs.2,99,380/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. after expiry of one month period from the date of incident till realization.

¶62

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:23098 MFA No. 1205 of 2019

¶63

(iii) The respondent No.1 is liable to pay the interest on

¶64

a sum of Rs.2,99,380/- at the rate of 12% per annum after expiry of one month period from the date of the incident till realization

¶65

(iv) The respondent No.2/Insurance company is liable to pay sum of Rs.1,48,928/-.to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 is liable to pay the remaining amount of Rs.1,50,452/-

¶66

(iv) Rest of the order of the Tribunal stands unaltered.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

NR/-

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 98

Sri Vasu v. Hoovinahaklu Estate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vasu v. Hoovinahaklu Estate

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

Smt Anusuyamma Vs the Managing Director

Vijayaraj Urs Vs the Managing Director Bmtc

Master Yuvaraj D S Vs P Junu Ganapathi

Sri Suresh K Vs Sri Lal Sab

Sri Thammaiahgowda Vs Divisional Controller

Ismail Vs Sri. Srinivasa