Allowed

Susheelamma @ Susheela v. K H Eshwarappa

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2023MFA/962/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This miscellaneous first appeal seeks enhancement of compensation awarded under the Employees' Compensation Act. The court recalculated loss of dependency based on the statutory minimum monthly income of Rs.4,000, increased the award, and corrected the interest period to run from the date of accident.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.98,620/- awarded with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident.

Susheelamma @ Susheela Vs K H Eshwarappa — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

MFA No. 962 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.962 OF 2018 (WC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUSHEELAMMA @ SUSHEELA W/O K H ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, HOUSE HOLD WORK, R/O DOGGANNAL, HOLALKERE TALUK -577 526, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.

¶8

K E SIDDESH S/O K H ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O LIG-69,

¶9

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

¶10

HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA - 577501.

¶11

…APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

K H ESHWARAPPA S/O HANUMNTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R C OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO.KA-16/A-9384, R/O DOGGANAL, HOLALKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.

¶15

¶16

MFA No. 962 of 2018

¶17

THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SRI SHARADA COMPLEX OPPOSITE TO KSRTC BUS STAND, P G ROAD, CHITRADURGA -577 501

¶18

K.E. DHANANJAYA S/O K H ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O LIG-69, HOUSING BOARD COLONY, KELAGOTE, CHITRADURGA - 577 501.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. H.C. VRUSHABHENDRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 AND R3 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 27.11.2019)

¶21

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 12.04.2017 PASSED IN ECA.NO.4/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOLALKERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶22

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

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

This appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants

¶25

seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶27

¶28

MFA No. 962 of 2018

¶29

Deceased K.E. Kumar is the son of respondent No.1/

¶30

Owner of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-16/A-9384 and he was working as a driver under respondent No.1. He was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and Rs.100/batta per day. On 26.08.2009, as per the instruction of respondent No.1, deceased was driving the said lorry loaded with iron ore from Bellary to Krishnapattanna, Nellur District, Andrapradesh. On 29.08.2009, at about 4.00 a.m., near drivers' colony on NH-5, near railway track at Nellur, deceased lost control over the said lorry and dashed back side of the trailer which was loaded with stones. Due to impact he sustained grievous injuries all

¶31

over the body and he succumbed to the injuries on 05.09.2009, during the period of treatment. Hence, the claimants being the mother and brothers of the deceased, have filed the claim petition under Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 claiming compensation.

¶32

¶33

MFA No. 962 of 2018

¶34

appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

¶35

The learned Commissioner/Tribunal has

¶36

considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and awarded compensation of Rs.3,00,500/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 30th day of the judgment till realization.

¶37

Being aggrieved by the lesser amount of

¶38

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶39

In the present case, the deceased was working

¶40

as a driver under respondent No.1. As per Section 4 of the Employees' Compensation Act, the income of the deceased has to be considered minimum of Rs.4,000/- per month in

¶41

¶42

MFA No. 962 of 2018

¶43

the absence of proof of income. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident. As per Schedule-IV of the Employees' Compensation Act, the relevant factor applicable to his age is 197.06. Therefore, the quantum of compensation under the head 'Loss of dependency' would be re-assessed and quantified as -

¶44

Rs.3,94,120/- (Rs.4000x50%x197.06)

¶45

The same is awarded under the head 'Loss of dependency' . A sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head 'Transportation of dead body and Funeral Expenses' is just and proper and the same is kept in tact. The other observations and findings made by the Tribunal/ Commissioner are kept in tact.

¶46

The Tribunal/Commissioner has committed an error while granting interest, wherein, in the operative portion of the judgment, it is mentioned as 'from the 30th day of the judgment till realization'. The interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be awarded from the date of

¶47

¶48

MFA No. 962 of 2018

¶49

accident till the date of realization or till the date of deposit made before the Tribunal.

¶50

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i. The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed-in-part.

¶53

ii. The judgment and award passed in ECA No.04/2015 dated 12.04.2017 by the Senior Civil Judge, Holalkere, is hereby modified.

¶54

iii. The appellants/claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.98,620/- (Rs.3,99,1203,00,500) awarded by the Tribunal with interest @ 12% p.a., from the date of accident till its realization.

¶55

iv. The appellants/claimants shall not be entitled for interest for 199 days delay in filing the appeal.

¶56

¶57

MFA No. 962 of 2018

¶58

v. Costs made easy.

¶59

vi. Ordered accordingly.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

snc

Susheelamma @ Susheela v. K H Eshwarappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Susheelamma @ Susheela v. K H Eshwarappa

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

Smt. Thereshiya Sandhya Vs Sri.Nagesh G K

Mr Srinivas Vs Magma Hdi General

The Legal Manager Vs Mr Krishnappa Poojary

Mr Shankarappa @ Basu @ Shankar Vs Sri M Mohammed

L. Pinto Vs Smt. Appi

Thimmakka Vs Sri Narayanappa