MFA against an award fixing compensation income at Rs.6,500/mo versus the notified rate of Rs.8,000/mo under the Employees Compensation Act. Court held statutory rate applies. Appeal partly allowed with enhancement.
Appeal allowed in part; award modified by enhancing compensation by Rs.93,591/-; insurance company 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:23811 MFA No. 7232 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7232 OF 2017 (WC)
BETWEEN:
ROOPENDRA. H. H, S/O. HARISH KUMAR H.S., AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT SIDDAIAH NAGARA, PRESENTLY R/AT 1ST CROSS, RAKSHANAPURAM, HASSAN-573 201.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI GIRISH B BALADARE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by T S NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka
IFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD., CUSTOMER SERVICE CENTER, SRI SHANTHI TOWER,
5TH FLOOR, NO.141, 3RD MAIN, EAST OF N.G.E.F. LAYOUT, KASTHURI NAGARA, BENGALURU-560 043.
NC: 2023:KHC:23811 MFA No. 7232 of 2017
HASSAN-573 201.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V/O DATED 13.12.2017)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 19.04.2017 PASSED IN ECA.NO.68/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER UNDER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 19.04.2017 passed in ECA.No.68/2014 by the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner under Employees Compensation Act, 1923, Hassan, whereby the appellant herein was awarded a sum of Rs.6,93,406/-, seeking enhancement of the compensation.
respondent, he had been to Kushal Nagar by driving the said Car and while returning at about 3.00 a.m. on 04.04.2012 near the bus stand of Arjunahalli village, K.R Nagara, due to the high beam light of the opposite vehicle his Car hit to a road side bridge and the petitioner's leg caught in between the steering and seat. Resultantly he suffered crush injuries. Initially he was shifted to K.R Nagar hospital and as per the advise of the doctor he was shifted to Vidyaranya hospital, Mysore, where his left leg was amputated. He claims that he sustained injuries during the course of his employment as a driver and while he was the driver under 1st respondent, he was paid a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as salary and allowance of Rs.100/- per day. It was also contended that he is unable to work due to the disability caused in the accident. Therefore, he claims compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries and disability sustained by him in the aforesaid accident.
Commissioner, respondents entered appearance and only
the 2nd respondent filed written statement.
the age, address, occupation, income and the injuries sustained by the petitioner are denied. The employeremployee relationship and the incident are also denied. It has sought for the dismissal of the petition.
appropriate issues were framed by the Commissioner. The petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ex.P1 to P165 were marked in evidence. The Doctor who treated the petitioner
was examined as PW2 and Exs.C1 to C3 were marked. The respondent No.1 examined himself as RW1 and the policy was got marked as Ex.R1.
held the income of the petitioner to be Rs.6,500/- per month and holding that he had suffered total permanent
disability, applied the relevant factor commensurate to his age at 207.98 and awarded the compensation of Rs.4,05,561/- regarding disability and also awarded a sum of Rs.2,87,845/- towards medical expenses and the cost of the prosthesis.
"Whether the Commissioner is justified in restricting the income of the petitioner to Rs.6,500/per month even though the amount notified under the provisions of Section 4(1) of the E.C. Act, is Rs.8,000/- per month?."
"[4]. Amount of compensation.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the amount of compensation shall be as follows, namely:—
(a) where death results from the injury an amount equal to [fifty per cent.] of the monthly
NC: 2023:KHC:23811 MFA No. 7232 of 2017
wages of the deceased [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of [one lakh and twenty thousand rupees], whichever is more;
(b) where permanent total disablement results from the injury, an amount equal to [sixty per cent.] of the monthly wages of the injured [employee] multiplied by the relevant factor; or an amount of [one lakh and forty thousand rupees],whichever is more:
[Provided that the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, from time to time, enhance the amount of compensation mentioned in clauses (a) and (b);]
Explanation I.—For the purposes of clause (a) and clause (b), “relevant factor”, in relation to a [employee] means the factor specified in the second column of Schedule IV against the entry in the first column of that Schedule specifying the number of years which are the same as the completed years of the age of the [employee] on his last birthday immediately preceding the date on which the compensation fell due."
respondent No.1 that the amount of monthly wages notified under Section 4(1) of the E.C. Act, stood at
Rs.8,000/- per month as on the date of the accident. However, he submits that in view of the evidence of RW1, the employer, the Commissioner was justified in holding the income to be Rs.6,500/- per month.
same. On the contrary, the Commissioner has considered the wages as stated by RW1. When the Act intends to compensate the petitioner and recognizes the wages for the purpose of calculation of the compensation, the Commissioner erred in restricting the income at Rs.6,500/per month. In fact, the PW1 has categorically stated that he was paid Rs.8,000/- per month and daily bata of Rs.100/-. This evidence was also not accepted by the commissioner. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal/ Commissioner should have taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.8,000/- per month as notified under Section 4(1) of the E.C. Act.
of E.C. Act, and rest of the conditions as applicable to a motor vehicle policy would also apply.
NC: 2023:KHC:23811 MFA No. 7232 of 2017
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal/Commissioner in ECA No.68/2014 is modified by awarding a sum of Rs.93,591/- in addition to what has been awarded by the Tribunal/Commissioner.
(iii) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with interest within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
(iv) Rest of the conditions imposed by the Tribunal/Commissioner regarding interest and the liability remain unaltered.
tsn*
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 91
Sd/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner was justified in restricting the petitioner's income to Rs.6,500/- per month despite the government notification under Section 4(1) of the E.C. Act at Rs.8,000/- per month?
Whether the appeal for enhancement of compensation should be partially allowed based on the statutory notified wage rate?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
ROOPENDRA. H. H
THE MANAGER, IFCO TOKIO GENERAL INS. CO. LTD.
C M JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
