Remanded

Manjunatha v. Dhanalakshmi

Karnataka HC7 Dec 2023MFA/2019/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an award of Rs.8,30,988/- in an employee's compensation case. The High Court set aside the award for lack of evidence linking death to prior injuries and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with liberty to amend pleadings and lead evidence.

What did the court decide?

The order passed in ECA No.7/2014 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with liberty to amend pleadings and adduce evidence.

Manjunatha Vs Dhanalakshmi — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:44680 MFA No. 2019 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.2019 OF 2019(ECA)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MANJUNATHA,

¶9

S/O N.KRISHNOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O NEAR DANAMMANA MORI, GOVINDAPURA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶10

SACHIDANANDA BABAJI,

¶11

S/O C.KRISHNA RAO, MAJOR,

¶12

R/O NEAR DANAMMANA MORI, GOVINDAPURA, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶13

…APPELLANTS

¶14

Digitally signed by JAI JYOTHI J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI.P.N.HARISH, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

DHANALAKSHMI,

¶18

W/O LATE B.S.RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

¶19

ANUSHREE,

¶20

W/O LATE B.S.RAGHAVENDRA, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER

¶21

AND NATURAL GUARDIAN DHANALAKSHMI.

¶22

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:44680 MFA No. 2019 of 2019

¶23

1 AND 2 ARE RESIDENTS OF C/O UPENDRA K.T., PRASADH NILAYA, L.I.G-1-18, KHB COLONY, GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201.

¶24

SHAKUNTHALA, W/O SUNDARA POOJARI, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O 1ST CROSS, TIPPUNAGARA, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA CITY - 577 201.

¶25

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL SUB DIVISION, MESCOM, KEB CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R3; SRI.B.C.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; R2 - MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1)

¶28

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:31.12.2018 PASSED ON ECA NO.7/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.8,30,988/- WITH INTEREST AT 12 PERCENT P.A. FROM 06.03.2012 DATE OF DEATH OF THE PETITIONER TILL PAYMENT WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.

¶29

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

¶30

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44680 MFA No. 2019 of 2019

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

Aggrieved by the award passed in ECA No.7/2014 dated 31.12.2018 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and Employees Compensation Commissioner, Shivamogga. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/-. Initially, the deceased filed the petition seeking compensation in the year 2014. The accident had taken place on 02.01.2010 and the claim petition was filed on 19.10.2010. Thereafter, on 16.03.2012 the employee died and thereafter the Legal representatives were brought on record.

¶33

It is the case of the claimant that the deceased was working discharging duties as electrician for the respondent, i.e., the appellant herein. They were constructing the building and paying an amount of Rs.250/- per day as wages with a bata of Rs.50/-. On 02.01.2010 at about 12.30 p.m., as per the instructions of the employer, the electrician was fixing the electrical doom

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44680 MFA No. 2019 of 2019

¶35

light to the pillars of the entrance gate. The doom light was to be installed on the pillar at a height of 12 to 14 feet. During the course of his employment, for fixing the doom light, he was removing the dry concrete stored in the pipe with an iron rod in order to fix the doom light and came into contact with the high-tension electrical wire, which is about 8 to 9 feet height away from the pillar, and he sustained electrocution. He fell down from the pillar and he sustained grievous burn injuries and was brought to MC.Gann Hospital, Shivamogga. As per the advice of the doctor, injured was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital, Bengaluru and also Sahil Hospital, Mumbai. He had spent an amount of Rs.4,10,000/- towards medical expenses. Then on 09.07.2010 he issued a notice to the respondent claiming compensation of an amount of Rs.15,00,000/and he filed the petition on 19.10.2010. He died on 06.03.2012 and the LR's were brought on record and the Court below considering the evidence has granted an amount of Rs.8,30,988/-.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC:44680 MFA No. 2019 of 2019

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that initially claim petition was filed for the severe injuries sustained by the employer in the accident; thereafter, he died. No amendment petition was filed seeking compensation for the death of the deceased, pleadings were not amended. It is submitted that they have not let in any evidence to show that the death was caused because of the injuries sustained by the employee in the year 2010. Without examining anyone and without leading any cogent evidence the Court below had considered their case and granted the compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant submit that the Court below has passed the award without any basis and without any evidence.

¶39

Learned counsel for the claimant respondent submits that the Court below considering the Post Mortem certificate and other evidence has held that there was employer – employee relationship and because of the injuries sustained by the deceased while he was installing tube light in the house of the respondents, due to

¶40

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:44680 MFA No. 2019 of 2019

¶41

electrification he sustained injuries. Learned counsel submits that the incident had taken place on 02.01.2010. Even after 13 years, the family members could not enjoy the fruits of the award.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.4 appeared and submitted that no relief is granted against the respondent No.4.

¶43

Having heard the learned counsels on either side,

¶44

perused the entire material on record.

¶45

This appeal was admitted on 18.12.2019 on the

¶46

following substantial questions of law :

¶47

c) Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation

¶48

of an amount of Rs.8,30,988/- with 12% interest per annum from 06.03.2012 till

¶49

the date of realization when there is no

¶50

issue with regard to relationship of employer and employee?

¶51

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:44680 MFA No. 2019 of 2019

¶52

d) Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation without framing proper issue with regard to fastening of liability of on the owners?

¶53

e) Whether the Commissioner for Employee's Compensation/Tribunal is justified in awarding the compensation ignoring the acquittal order dated 8th

¶54

August, 2016 made in C.C No.1322/2010 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Shivamogga ?

¶55

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the claim petition was filed for compensation by the employee for the injuries sustained on 19.10.2010. When the employee died on 16.02.2012,

¶56

the claimants were supposed to amend the pleading and adduce the evidence to show that because of the said

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:44680 MFA No. 2019 of 2019

¶58

injuries sustained by the deceased about two years ago, he has succumbed to the said injuries and died. The evidence on record reveals that no doctor was examined by the claimants. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the order passed in ECA No. No.7/2014 and remand the matter before the Court below for fresh consideration. The parties are at liberty to adduce further evidence and amend the pleadings, and the Court below, considering the same shall pass appropriate orders and the amount shall be released to the owner of the vehicle. Application is filed for adducing the additional evidence, these documents the registry shall return to the appellant he is at liberty to file the same before the Court below and the Court below shall consider the same in accordance with the law.

¶59

i. Without further notice, both parties shall appear

¶60

before the Tribunal on 18.12.2023 and the Tribunal shall decide the case within three months from 18.12.2023.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2023:KHC:44680 MFA No. 2019 of 2019

¶63

ii. Registry is directed to send the entire record

¶64

along with the application filed by the claimant under Order 41 Rule 27.

¶65

iii. Amount deposited by the appellant shall remain in the deposit.

¶66

In light of this Order is being passed, IA No.1/2022 is dismissed.

¶67

Sd/JUDGE

¶68

RMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62 CT:SNN

Manjunatha v. Dhanalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunatha v. Dhanalakshmi

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

Sri. Kadirappa Vs Sri. Ramanna. v. v.

Arpitha Vs K M Dore Raj

Sri. Hemanth Kumar Vs Sri. Sunil Kumar H M

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Nagarathna

Rajappa Vs Sri Frankilin Dayananda

Sri. Subraya Badiya Naik Vs Sri. Nagaraj