Allowed

Sri. Channaveerappa v. Sri. Chandrashekhar

Karnataka HC18 Jul 2024MFA/2723/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this miscellaneous first appeal under the Employees Compensation Act, the High Court held that severe injuries leading to amputation below the elbow constitute 100% functional disability despite an 80% assessment. Applying Indra Bai, the court reassessed the benchmark wage and enhanced compensation payable by the employer.

What did the court decide?

Total compensation increased to Rs. 6,84,864; enhanced sum of Rs. 1,36,864 payable by Insurance Company; interest payable by Employer.

Sri. Channaveerappa Vs Sri. Chandrashekhar — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:27949 MFA No. 2723 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2723 OF 2019 (ECA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. CHANNAVEERAPPA S/O RACHOTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT CHIRATHEGUNDI POST, KUDLAGI TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 135.

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, OWNER OF SIDDARKHAN ESTATE, ARASINAGUPPE VILLAGE, DASARAHALLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-5577 101.

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. KATHYAYINI W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, SIDDARKHAN ESTATE, ARASINAGUPPE VILLAGE, DASARAHALLI,

¶14

CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK-577 101.

¶15

THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., YASHORAM CHAMBERS, RATHNAGIRI ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. RAVISH BENNI, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE SERVED)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:27949 MFA No. 2723 of 2019

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09/01/2019, PASSED IN ECA NO.25/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHIKKAMAGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal, filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, arises from the judgment and award dated 09.01.2019, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chikkamagaluru, in ECA No.25/2018.

¶23

The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation of Rs. 50 lakh with interest for injuries sustained during the course of his employment while performing coffee pulping work for Respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶24

The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 6,52,000/-, fastening liability on Respondent No. 1 for Rs. 79,000/- and on Respondent No. 3 for Rs. 5,73,000/-. Dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the claimant has appealed for an enhancement of compensation.

¶25

The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard, and the trial court records were carefully perused.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:27949 MFA No. 2723 of 2019

¶28

On 01.01.2018, while working under Respondent No. 1, the claimant sustained severe injuries when his left hand was caught in a coffee pulping machine as he was pushing coffee fruits into it. His left hand was fully crushed, leading to grievous injuries. The medical expert, examined as C.W.1, opined that the claimant suffered a lacerated wound on his head, degloving injuries to the scrotum and penis, and a fracture of both bones in his left forearm.

¶29

It is undisputed that due to the injuries to his left hand, the claimant underwent amputation below the elbow. The doctor assessed his functional disability at 80% for the whole body. The claimant, a coolie by occupation, was employed at a coffee plantation estate owned by Respondent No. 1.

¶30

The Supreme Court, in Indra Bai v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, AIROnline 2023 SC 549, held that functional disability, not just physical disability, is the determining factor in assessing whether a claimant has incurred total disablement. If the disablement from an accident incapacitates a workman from performing all work he was capable of prior to the accident, it constitutes total disablement for the purpose of awarding compensation under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, irrespective of whether the injury is specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act.

¶31

The proviso to Section 2(1)(l) of the Act does not diminish the effect of the substantive clause; instead, it enhances it

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:27949 MFA No. 2723 of 2019

¶33

by specifying categories where permanent total disablement is deemed to occur.

¶34

Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the Tribunal’s assessment of functional disability at 80% is accurate cannot be accepted. Considering the claimant’s functional disability at 100%, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reassessed as follows:

¶35

Under the insurance policy issued by Respondent No. 3, the workman’s risk was covered for a monthly wage of Rs. 8,000/-.

¶36

The insurance company calculated the premium at Rs. 266.66 per day x 30 days, amounting to Rs. 8,000/- per month.

¶37

The claimant’s actual daily wage from Respondent No. 1 was Rs. 305/-, with the policy covering a daily wage of Rs. 266.66.

¶38

Calculation:

¶39

Rs. 8,000 x 60% = Rs. 4,800

¶40

Rs. 4,800 x 142.68 (multiplier) = Rs. 6,84,864/- to be paid by Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company.

¶41

Rs. 305 - Rs. 266.66 = Rs. 38.34 x 142.68 = Rs. 5,470.36/- to be paid by the owner of the coffee estate (Respondent No. 1).

¶42

The claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 6,84,864/-, with liability fastened on Respondent No. 3 -

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:27949 MFA No. 2723 of 2019

¶45

Insurance Company to pay this amount. The compensation liability imposed on Respondent No. 1 by the Tribunal remains unchanged.

¶46

The enhanced compensation amount of Rs. 1,36,864/is payable by Respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company.

¶47

Respondent No. 1 is liable to pay interest on the entire compensation amount, including the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,36,864/-, from one month after the date of the accident until actual realization.

¶48

The registry is directed to transfer the records to the concerned Tribunal.

¶49

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶50

Sri. Channaveerappa v. Sri. Chandrashekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Channaveerappa v. Sri. Chandrashekhar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Lakshnarashimha Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Sri Aithappa Poojary Vs the Protection Officer

M/S A.V. Dhammangi Vision Foundation Vs Reserve Bank of India

Manjamma Vs Manjunath T

M/S Micronova Network Solutions Private Limited Vs Union of India

The Managing Director Vs Srinivasa Dead by Lrs