Partly allowed

Supyar Devi v. Nimish J. Patel

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2023MFA/2265/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenged a Tribunal's award regarding workmen's compensation for a deceased employee. The High Court held that while the compensation amount was accepted, the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal was erroneous and enhanced it to 12% p.a. from the date of the accident.

What did the court decide?

The compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident.

Supyar Devi Vs Nimish J. Patel — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 2265 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2265 OF 2018 (WC) BETWEEN:

¶7

SUPYAR DEVI W/O. CHHAGANSINGH @ CHANGANLALSINGH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶8

KUM. KIRAN GUJAR S/O. CHHAGANSINGH @ CHANGANLALSINGH, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS,

¶9

KUM. REWATI D/O. CHHAGANSINGH @ CHANGANLALSINGH, AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS,

¶10

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

¶11

OMPRAKASH GUJAR S/O. LATE CHHAGANSINGH @ CHANGANLALSINGH, AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS,

¶12

KUM. KITU S/O. LATE CHHAGANSINGH @ CHANGANLALSINGH, AGED ABOUT 08 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. MALIDEVI W/O. LATE RAMANATH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶14

APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.N.U. 446, LAMODNKIDHANI MOHANAVADI,

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 2265 of 2018

¶17

NAVALGARTH TALUK, JHUNJHUNU DISTRICT, RAJASTHAN, NOW R/AT JYOTHINAGARA, SIRA TOWN, TUMKUR-572 137. (BY SRI. SHANTHARAJ K., ADVOCATE)

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

AND:

¶20

NIMISH J. PATEL M/S. DEEP OOAD LINES, TRANSPORT NAGAR, CHANDERIYA DISTRICT, CHITOR GARH, PIN-312 001.

¶21

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGD. OFFICE, 3 MIDDLETON STREET, POST BOX NO. 9229, KALKATA-700 071, SERVICE ADDRESS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, M.G. ROAD, BEHIND KRISHNA TALKIES, ABOVE CORPORATION BANK, TUMAKURU-572 101. (BY SRI. A. M. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W. V/O. DTD.8.2.2019)

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

THIS MFA FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT,1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.10.2017 PASSED IN ECA.NO.2/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

¶24

¶25

MFA No. 2265 of 2018

¶26

AND J.M.F.C., SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶27

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

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

The appeal is filed by the claimants/appellants

¶30

seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶31

The brief facts of the case are that the deceased-Chhagansingh @ Chhaganlal was working as

¶32

driver under the 1st respondent in his container lorry bearing No.RJ-09-GA-5221. On 26.01.2016 at about 10.30 p.m., the deceased-Chhgansingh @ Chhaganlal while he

¶33

was discharging his duty during the course of his employment met with an accident on Hiriyur-Sira, N.H.48 Road near Manangi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Sira Taluk, due to which, the deceased died on the spot. Therefore, the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 10 of Employee's Compensation Act seeking compensation.

¶34

¶35

MFA No. 2265 of 2018

¶36

Heard the arguments on both sides and perused

¶37

the records.

¶38

Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submitted that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner/Tribunal is meagre one and prays for enhancement of compensation.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in taking the monthly wage at Rs. 10,000/- p.m., but as per Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'EC Act'), the monthly wage of Rs. 8,000/- p.m. ought to have been taken. Hence, prays for reduction of the monthly wage to Rs.8,000/and that the compensation be reassessed. Therefore, prays for modification of the award by taking judicial note to the fact of the error committed by the Commissioner/Tribunal.

¶40

¶41

MFA No. 2265 of 2018

¶42

6. The Commissioner/Tribunal by holding monthly

¶43

income at Rs.10,000/- p.m., by deducting 50% of the

¶44

wages and applying relevant factor according to the age of the claimant, has awarded the compensation of

¶45

Rs.9,73,200/-. The interest awarded is at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realisation.

¶46

Even though the Commissioner/Tribunal has

¶47

erred in taking income at higher rate at Rs.10,000/- p.m., it ought to have been taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. considering the date and year of the accident. But for giving that there is no appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. Therefore, it would be amounting to on part of the Insurance Company to take the monthly income as taken by the Tribunal is accepted. But the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till its realisation as per Section 4A(3)(a) of the EC act. But the Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate

¶48

¶49

MFA No. 2265 of 2018

¶50

of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till its realisation. The Tribunal has committed an error in this regard. Therefore, the rate of interest at the rate of 12% p.a. can be granted from the date of accident till its realisation. Therefore, only

¶51

to this extent of grant of interest as above ordered, the appeal filed by the claimants is liable to be allowed-inpart.

¶52

Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part only to the extent of grant of interest is concerned.

¶55

ii. The compensation amount determined by the Commissioner/Tribunal shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of accident till its realisation.

¶56

iii. The appellants/claimants are not entitled for the interest for 46 days delay in filing the appeal.

¶57

¶58

MFA No. 2265 of 2018

¶59

iv. Registry is directed to return the Trial Court Records along with certified copy of this order forthwith.

¶60

v. Costs made easy.

¶61

vi. Draw award accordingly.

¶62

Sd/JUDGE

¶63

Supyar Devi v. Nimish J. Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Supyar Devi v. Nimish J. Patel

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

B v Balaram Vs Althaf

Sri.K.Nagarajachari Vs M/S Fac Sri Ram Transport Finance

Sri Sachidananda Acharya Vs Sri Subhas

Mallesh Vs Sunil Chatra

M/S United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Jaya Bai @ Jayamma

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Junaid