Allowed

Sri Puttalingaiah v. Sri Rangaswamy R

Karnataka HC15 Mar 2024MFA/4045/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal under Section 30(1) Workmen's Compensation Act seeking enhancement and fixing liability on the insurer. Court held the policy did not cover a cleaner in the Tempo Traveller, enhanced compensation to Rs.4,30,080/- and fastened liability on the vehicle owner.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.1,14,150 with 12% interest awarded against first respondent (owner), payable within two months; award modified.

Sri Puttalingaiah Vs Sri Rangaswamy R — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:10837 MFA No. 4045 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4045 OF 2013 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. PUTTALINGAIAH S/O LATE SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT. C/O GIRISH NO.204, 2^ND CROSS, BALAJINAGAR, THIGALARAPALYA MAIN ROAD, PEENYA, 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE-560 058.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. BHUSHANI KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI. RANGASWAMY.R S/O RAMAIAH, R/AT NO.25, VEERABADRANAGARA, BANASHANKARI 3^RD STAGE, HOSAKEREHALLI, BANGALORE-560 085.

¶14

THE MANAGER, ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, OPP: TO CENTERAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MAGARATH ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(R1-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. A.N.KRISHNASWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:10837 MFA No. 4045 of 2013

¶19

THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED: 24.05.2012 PASSED IN KA.A.BAN-01/ECA/NFC/CR05/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-1, BANGALORE.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Sri.Kumar., learned counsel on behalf of Smt.Bhushani Kumar., for the appellant and Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy., learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have appeared in person.

¶23

Emergent notice to respondents was ordered on 10.02.2015. A perusal of the officer order depicts that notice to respondent No.1 is served and unrepresented. He neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as party in person.

¶24

The claimant has preferred the captioned appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation and also fixing the liability on the Insurance Company.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10837 MFA No. 4045 of 2013

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2 have urged several contentions.

¶27

Counsel Sri.A.N.Krishna Swamy., in presenting his arguments contended that the claimant is a Cleaner in the Tempo Traveller. There is no provision to cover the risk of Cleaner in the Tempo Traveller.

¶28

Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the appeal papers with utmost care.

¶29

This Court vide order dated:26.02.2024 framed the following substantial question of law.

¶30

"Whether the Commissioner is justified in

¶31

exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of paying compensation when the owner has obtained Miscellaneous Vehicle Package Policy and has paid an additional premium amount of Rs.25/-?"

¶32

I have perused the Judgment and award with utmost care. The Tribunal extenso referred to the material on record and awarded compensation of Rs.3,15,930/- (Rupees Three Lakh Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty only)

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:10837 MFA No. 4045 of 2013

¶34

with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after lapse of one month from the date of incident till the date of deposit.

¶35

Suffice it to note that the claimant was aged 20 years as on the date of accident. In view of the notification dated 31.05.2010, Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) must be taken into consideration. If 50% is deducted, it would be Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only). It is the case of injuries and it must be taken 60% of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only), the wages would be Rs.2,400/- (Rupees Two Thousand Four Hundred only). It is said that the claimant has suffered total disability of 80%. The factor must be taken into consideration at 224 for the age 20. The calculation is as under:

¶36

Rs.2,400 X 80 X 224/100	Rs.4,30,080/-
(Less) Compensation awarded by the	- Rs.3,15,930/-
Tribunal
Enhanced Compensation awarded by	Rs.1,14,150/-
this Court.

¶37

Therefore, the claimants would be entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,14,150/- (Rupees One Lakh Fourteen

¶38

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:10837 MFA No. 4045 of 2013

¶39

Thousand One Hundred and Fifty only) with interest at the rate of 12% after one month from the date of accident.

¶40

Suffice it to note that the coverage of Insurance Policy is not covered for the Cleaner. There is no provision to cover the risk of Cleaner in the Tempo Traveller. In view of exoneration of liability on the Insurance Company, the owner of the offending vehicle is directed to satisfy the award of the Tribunal. Hence, faxtening the Liability on the first respondent - Sri.Rangaswamy.R is just and proper.

¶41

Hence, the following:

¶42

ORDER

¶43

The Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed . The Judgment and award dated:24.05.2012 passed by the Labour Officer and Employees Relief Commissioner, Bengaluru in ¸ÀASÉå:PÁC¨ÉA-1/E¹J/J£ïJ¥sï¹/¹Dgï-5/2010 is modified to the

¶44

extent stated hereinabove.

¶45

The claimants are entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.1,14,150/- (Rupees One Lakh Fourteen Thousand Five Hundred and One Fifty

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:10837 MFA No. 4045 of 2013

¶48

only) with interest at the rate of 12% after one month from the date of accident till realization.

¶49

The first respondent shall deposit the aforementioned amount along with 12% interest after one month from the date of accident within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment.

¶50

Needless to observe that the claimant is

¶51

not entitled for the interest for delayed period.

¶52

The Registry is directed to draw the modified award accordingly.

¶53

Office is directed to transmit the original

¶54

records to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.

¶55

Sd/JUDGE

¶56

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Sri Puttalingaiah v. Sri Rangaswamy R

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Puttalingaiah v. Sri Rangaswamy R

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

Sri S Manjunath Vs Sri M Ramakrishnappa

Chaithra Vs Sri. M.Kumar

Appaiah Vs Swami Jogi

S C Shivakumar Vs the Chief Traffic Manager

Sri B N Nagesh Vs Sri Ravikumara

The Manager Vs Yadhavamurthy