Dismissed

K Sharmas @ Khan Sharmas v. M/S Badave Engg. Ltd.

Karnataka HC29 Nov 2023MFA/484/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka dismissed this First Appeal under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act against a judgment where the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation for industrial injury and amputation. The Court held no substantial question of law arose and confirmed the lower Tribunal's award.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal are confirmed.

K Sharmas @ Khan Sharmas Vs M/S Badave… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:43145 MFA No. 484 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 484 OF 2021 (ECA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

K SHARMAS @ KHAN SHARMAS S/O GOUSPEER SAHEB AGED 32 YEARS R/AT MABUSUBANI, DARGA MOKA BELLARI NOW R/AT BELLUR VILLAGE KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY MISS. SWATHI G HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

M/S BADAVE ENGG. LTD., PLOT NO.0.207-210 KIDB NARASAPURA INDL.AREA KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101.

¶13

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NEAR CANARA BANK DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE KOLAR-563101 REP BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. MANJULA N TEJASWI., ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 08.07.2022)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT

¶17

¶18

NC: 2023:KHC:43145 MFA No. 484 of 2021

¶19

AND AWARD DATED 14.03.2019 PASSED IN ECA.NO. 13/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOLAR, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal under Section 30(1) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.3.2019 passed by I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Kolar in ECA No.13/2016.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 18.1.2016 when the claimant was working as a helper in production department in respondent No.1’s factory, at that time, he met with an accident and sustained crush injury to left index finger and amputation was done. The claimant filed a petition seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he spent huge amount

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:43145 MFA No. 484 of 2021

¶26

towards medical expenses, conveyance charges, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred while he was on duty and working as per the instructions of respondent No.1.

¶27

On service of notice, the respondents through counsel and only respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶28

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the

¶29

Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the claimant was an employee under respondent No.1 and he sustained injuries during the course of his employment. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.128,537/- along with

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:43145 MFA No. 484 of 2021

¶31

interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the compensation amount along with interest. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.

¶32

The learned counsel for the claimant has contended that due to the accident, the claimant has suffered crush injury to left index finger and the same has been amputed. The disability assessed by the Tribunal at 11% is on the lower side. She further contended that the overall compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Hence, she sought for allowing the appeal.

¶33

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has contended that injury sustained by the claimant is minor in nature and the index finger is amputed only by 1½ inch. As per schedule-II mentioned in the Act, the disability has been rightly taken by the Tribunal and awarded just and reasonable compensation. Moreover, there is no substantial question that arises for consideration in this appeal. The claimant has not made

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:43145 MFA No. 484 of 2021

¶35

out a case for admitting the appeal. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶37

It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained injuries during the course of his employment while he was working as helper under respondent No.1. There is no dispute regarding employer and employee relationship between respondent No.1 and claimant.

¶38

The claimant has sustained injury to left index finger and the said finger has been amputed by 1½ inch. As per Schedule-II of the Act, the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at 11% and income at Rs.8,000/- p.m. and accordingly, awarded just and reasonable compensation. There is no error in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. There is no substantial question of law that

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:43145 MFA No. 484 of 2021

¶41

arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶42

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned

¶43

judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

DM List No.: 3 Sl No.: 37

K Sharmas @ Khan Sharmas v. M/S Badave Engg. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K Sharmas @ Khan Sharmas v. M/S Badave Engg. Ltd.

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

Mohammed Nawaz Vs P v Govindacharyulu

Smt G Nagarathnamma Vs Mr M v Chandrashekarappa

Mr Kaleemulla Khan Vs Mr Shafiquddin Shariff

S G Umesha Vs Ilyas T M

Sri Lakshmana Vs Sri Pratish D

Lakshmi @ Lakshmi Bai Vs the Managing Director