National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri N P Santhosh @ Santhosh

Karnataka HC19 Jun 2023MFA/188/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Miscellaneous First Appeal against a workmen compensation award, the Karnataka High Court held that familial ties do not preclude an employment relationship. The Court modified the award, reducing the compensation from Rs.1,25,952 to Rs.75,571 based on a revised disability assessment of 15%. The Court also adjudicated interest claims.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced from Rs. 1,25,952 to Rs. 75,571 at 12% interest from the date of accident; no interest for 81-day delay in appeal.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri N P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:21152 MFA No. 188 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 188 OF 2012 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DDO – 10, NEW DELHI. THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE NO.144, SUBHARAM COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 1. REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER SMT. D. KARTHIKA.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH 1. SRI. N.P.SANTHOSH @ SANTHOSH, COURT OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, 2. SRI. N.P.SANDESH, MAJOR IN AGE, BOTH ARE SONS OF SRI. N.N.PREMANATH, KUDIDELE ESTATE, RAYARAKOPPALU, ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT – 571 021. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶13

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:21152 MFA No. 188 of 2012

¶14

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.7.2011 PASSED IN CWC:NF:SR:05/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, HASSAN DIVISION, HASSAN, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.1,25,952/WITH INTEREST.

¶15

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

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order and award dated 6.7.2011 passed in CWC:NF:SR:05/2009 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Hassan SubDvision, Hassan.

¶18

Brief facts of the case are:

¶19

The first respondent being the brother of the second respondent suffered injury while driving the New Maruti Swift Car No.KA.19/TCR.395/08 insured in the name of his brothersecond respondent. The first respondent filed the claim petiton claiming compensation. The Commissioner perversely dealt with relationship issue and over assessed the compensation by granting Rs.1,25,952/-. Hence, the Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the order and award passed by the Commissioner.

¶20

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:21152 MFA No. 188 of 2012

¶21

Heard both sides and perused the records.

¶22

In the present case the grounds raised by the

¶23

Insurance Company is that the claimant is brother of respondent No.2 and both are residing in the same residence. Therefore, the claimant cannot be a workman under his own brother and there is no relationship of employer and employee between them and the claim petition is not maintainable. Hence, prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the order and award passed by the Commissioner. Further submitted that, without prejudice to the above said contention, the quantum of compensation awarded is on the higher side and prays to reduce the same.

¶24

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant justified the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶25

In the present case, the claimant is brother of respondent No.2. It is stated that the claimant was working as a driver under the employment of respondent No.2. and met with an accident and sustained injuries. Just because the claimant is brother of respondent No.2, it cannot be said that

¶26

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:21152 MFA No. 188 of 2012

¶27

there is no relationship of employer and employee. It is not uncommon that just because there is relationship of brothers or father and son or husband and wife, the family members cannot work as a workman/employee. It is stated that the claimant was working as a driver in the jeep in the Estate. Therefore, just because the claimant is a brother of respondent No.2, that does not mean that the claimant was not working as an employee. In this regard, the learned Commissioner has rightly assessed the injuries and awarded compensation, for which it requires no interference by this Court.

¶28

In the present case, the claimant had sustained injury to the left elbow. It is the evidence of the doctor that the claimant has suffered fracture in his left hand and movement of the left elbow is diminished. The doctor has stated that the claimant had suffered 25% of physical disability. The doctor has not stated whether the claimant had suffered permanent partial disability or permanent total disability. But considering the nature of injury sustained, at the most the claimant had suffered permanent partial disability. Considering the nature of injuries, the percentage of disability of doctor is found to be on the higher side. Therefore, as per evidence that the claimant

¶29

NC: 2023:KHC:21152 MFA No. 188 of 2012

¶30

¶31

had suffered fracture of injuries, it is just and proper to take 15% as permanent partial disability.

¶32

Monthly wages of the claimant has taken at Rs.4,000/, the claimant was aged 29 years, therefore, the relevant factor is 209.92. Hence, the loss of earning capacity due to disability is reassessed and quantified as (4,000x60%x15%x209.92) = Rs.75,571/-. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.75,571/- instead of Rs.1,25,952/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till realization.

¶33

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶36

ii. The order and award passed in CWC:NF:SR:05/2009

¶37

passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan, dated 6.7.2011 is modified by reducing the compensation from Rs.1,25,952/to Rs.75,571/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.75,571/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of accident till realization.

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:21152 MFA No. 188 of 2012

¶39

¶40

iii. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the delayed period of 81 days in filing the appeal.

¶41

iv. costs made easy.

¶42

v. ordered accordingly.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

AP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri N P Santhosh @ Santhosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sri N P Santhosh @ Santhosh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. N.P. Padma W/O S. Manjunath Vs Smt. Kavitha M. W/O Mohan Velu V.M.

Sri Chandrashekar S/O B. Rajanna Vs Sri K S Narayanappa

Shyamala v. Nayak @ Latha Nayak Vs Usman

Venkatesha Vs Ajaysharma

Smt Doddamma Vs the Executive Officer

Bhoomika Singh G Vs Sri G MD Azamathulla