Allowed

S Praveen v. the Owner Havvalli Estate

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2024CRP/323/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition and set aside an order dismissing an execution petition filed under the Employees' Compensation Act for unpaid interest. The court directed the executing court to pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to the non-appearing respondent-owner.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; impugned order set aside; execution petition restored; appropriate order to be passed by executing court.

S Praveen Vs the Owner Havvalli Estate — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:32971 CRP No. 323 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 323 OF 2019 (EX)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

S PRAVEEN S/O SHEKHARA, RESIDING AT SYDUKHAN, NANDIBATLU POST, LINGADAHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶9

KUMARI PALLAVI D/O SHEKAHARA, RESIDING AT SYDUKHAN, NANDIBATLU POST, LINGADAHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶10

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SMT RANI W/O SHEKHARA, RESIDING AT SYDUKHAN, NANDIBATLU POST, LINGADAHALLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. SHARATH P.H. ADV FOR SRI. SACHIN B S., ADV FOR PETITIONER) AND:

¶14

THE OWNER HAVVALLI ESTATE C/O KIRAN TEXTORIUM, M.G.ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:32971 CRP No. 323 of 2019

¶17

THE MANAGER M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., YASHORAM CHAMBERS, RATHNAGIRI ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR CITY.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2018 PASSED IN EX.PETITION NO.47/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHIKKAMAGALURU DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED BY JUDGMENT DEBTOR. FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners challenge the order passed by the trial court dismissing the execution petition filed by the petitioners, wherein they claimed interest on the total compensation amount awarded.

¶24

The petitioners had filed a petition under Sections 22 and 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation with interest due to the death of Sri. Shekara during the course of his employment with respondent No.1.

¶25

The trial court awarded a total compensation amount of Rs.7,68,560/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, payable after the expiry of one month from the date of the accident until full realization. The Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.7,68,560/-, while the owner was held liable to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum, starting one month from the date of the accident.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:32971 CRP No. 323 of 2019

¶28

The owner’s failure to pay the interest as ordered prompted the petitioners to file Execution Case No.47/2018 before the executing court. The owner filed objections, claiming that Rs.10,000/- was paid in cash and Rs.40,000/- by cheque, for a total payment of Rs.50,000/- towards the interest to which the petitioners were entitled. The trial court, accepting the owner’s claim, dismissed the execution case. The petitioners, however, contend that they are entitled to a total sum of Rs.1,34,055/-.

¶29

Respondent No.1 (the owner), despite being served notice, has failed to appear either in person or through counsel.

¶30

The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners have been duly considered, and the trial court records have been perused.

¶31

The liability to pay interest at 12% per annum, beginning one month after the date of the accident, was fastened on the owner. The interest amount calculated from 11.06.2016 to 24.11.2017 totals Rs.1,33,985/-. However, the respondent-owner has only partially satisfied this liability by paying Rs.50,000/-, despite being obligated to deposit the full amount with the Commissioner, as prescribed under Section 8 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the executing court is unsustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

i. Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:32971 CRP No. 323 of 2019

¶36

ii. The impugned order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the II^nd Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Chikkamangaluru, in the Execution Petition No.47/2018 is hereby set aside and the execution petition stands restored.

¶37

iii. The Execution Court to pass appropriate order in accordance with law after issuing notice to the respondent No.1.

¶38

iv. The Execution Court to dispose of the Execution Petition within a period of three months from the date of appearance of respondent No.1.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶41

TIN

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65

S Praveen v. the Owner Havvalli Estate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S Praveen v. the Owner Havvalli Estate

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

M/S Connaissance Asset Shoppe India P Vs Sri v Kiran Kumar

Hathun Bi Vs State of Karnataka

Chimes Educational Trust Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Balajaiah Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Sri B v Srinivasaiah Vs Sri Narayanaswamy

Sri R Ramesh Vs Sri R Nagaraj