Appeal against Commissioner's award under the Employees Compensation Act. High Court held statutory wages of Rs.8,000/month must apply for loss of earning capacity calculation, leading to enhancement of compensation awarded to workman.
Compensation enhanced by Rs.45,878/-. Respondent No.2 directed to deposit amount with interest.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:25393 MFA No. 3724 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3724 OF 2019 (ECA)
BETWEEN:
THOUSHIK PASHA, S/O. MOHAMMAD ATHIK, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, ABAAD MOHALLA, EDGA ROAD, TIPPU CIRCLE, HASSAN 573 201.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI BYRAREDDY G S, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KAVITHA.H.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUNA REDDY N.A, ADVOCATE FOR SRI B PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS D/W V/O DATED 03.08.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17/10/2018, PASSED IN ECA NO.27/2016, ON THE FILE
OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the appellant/petitioner is directed against the judgment and award dated 17-10-2018 passed in ECA No.27/2016 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner for Employees Compensation Act, Hassan, (hereinafter referred to as "the
Commissioner" for brevity).
driver of the said vehicle. It was contended that on 13-5-2016 they had loaded iron tables from Hassan and
went to Devalagundi School of Hoskote and after unloading, they loaded the iron racks and they were
returning via NH 75 near Heruru of Kunigal and the said vehicle was driven in high speed in negligent manner by its driver and as a result, it turned turtle and the petitioner sustained injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Kunigal Hospital, wherein, he took treatment and the injuries have resulted in disability to him. It was contended that he was paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- as a salary and a sum of Rs.300/- per day as allowance. Since the respondent No.1 did not compensate the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him during the employment, he has filed the petition claiming compensation.
appeared before the Commissioner. Respondent No.1 filed objections contending that the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and therefore, the liability has to be fastened upon it. Respondents No.1 also admitted that the petitioner was the cleaner in the said goods vehicle.
contended that there was no reason for the cleaner to travel in the said goods vehicle and the relationship of employer and employee has not been proved by the petitioner. It was also contended that the terms and conditions of the policy were violated and therefore, the petition be dismissed.
sides, the Commissioner has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,933/- towards loss of earning capacity due to disability and a sum of Rs.39,291/- towards the medical
expenses and in all Rs.1,40,224/- together with interest.
Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that the income of the petitioner was Rs.5,500/- per month despite the provisions of Section 4(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, notified the wages to be Rs.8,000/- per month?
Compensation Act, shows that by virtue of Gazette Notification issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment dated 31-5-2010, the monthly wages was fixed at Rs.8,000/-. The Commissioner, in his impugned
judgment holds that as per the cross-examination of respondent No.1 to the petitioner, it was suggested that he was paying Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.50/- per day as bata and therefore, it was considered and assessment was made that the petitioner was earning Rs.5,500/- per month. Under these circumstances, the wages fixed by the Commissioner is not sustainable under law. Moreover, no documentary evidence was also placed on record to establish the wages paid by respondent No.1 to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the Commissioner has erred in holding that the wages to the petitioner was Rs.5,500/- per month. The Commissioner has assessed
the disability at 14% with reference to the evidence of PW2. The petitioner had sustained severe crush injury of the left hand with tendon and bone injury, fracture of
lateral mallelous left, tenderness chest and abrasion of right knee. Therefore, the disability assessed by the Commissioner is proper and correct and no interference is required in respect of the same. In para 15 of the impugned judgment, it has also taken the functional disability of the petitioner in coming to such a conclusion.
entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,46,811/- + 39,291/- = 1,86,102/-. There shall be an enhancement of Rs.45,878/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Commissioner. The substantial question of law raised is answered accordingly. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is modified awarding a sum of Rs.45,878/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Commissioner along with interest at 12% p.a.
(iii) Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compensation amount together with interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
(iv) The rest of the order of the Commissioner remain unaltered.
Sd/JUDGE
tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 85
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding the appellant's income to be Rs.5,500/- per month despite statutory wages fixed at Rs.8,000/- under Section 4(1) of the Employees Compensation Act?
Whether the compensation awarded by the Commissioner for loss of earning capacity and medical expenses should be enhanced based on the statutory wage fixation?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
THOUSHIK PASHA
KHAZAR M H
THE MANAGER, RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
