Disposed

Smt. Sameena v. Sri Hassainabb J S

Karnataka HC30 Aug 2024MFA/490/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cross appeals under the Employees' Compensation Act concerning a lorry cleaner who died of a heart attack while guarding a loaded lorry. The court upheld liability for work-related death and enhanced compensation by computing wages at Rs.8,000 per month instead of Rs.7,000.

What did the court decide?

Claimants awarded enhanced total compensation of Rs.8,06,640/- with interest; insurer directed to deposit within six weeks.

Smt. Sameena Vs Sri Hassainabb J S — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 490 OF 2020 (ECA)

¶7

C/W

¶8

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1234 OF 2020(ECA)

¶9

MFA 490/2020

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. SAMEENA W/O LATE KUNNI MOHAMMED AGED 33 YEARS.

¶12

KUM.FATHIMA MUNASSIRA D/O LATE KUNNI MOHAMMED AGED 8 YEARS.

¶13

KUM.MASHITHA D/O LATE KUNNI MOHAMMED AGED 6 YEARS

¶14

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

KUM. MUFEEDA D/O LATE KUNNI MOHAMMED AGED 4 YEARS ALLELLANT Nos. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS R/BY THEIR MOTHER THE 1ST APPELLANT AS MINOR GUARDIAN.

¶16

AISAMMA

¶17

W/O LATE REHAMAN AGED 68 YEARS ALL ARE R/O ANEMAHAL VILLAGE SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT, R/AT EWS 760, 19TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGARA HASSAN-573201

¶18

…APPELLANTS

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶21

(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA, ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

SRI HASSAINABB J S S/O SULEMAN MAJOR, .31, JAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶24

THE MANAGER SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., E-8, RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SEETHAPURA, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN-302022. R/BY THE MANAGER NO.41, A J CHAMBERS OPPOSITE TO INDIAN OIL PETROL BUNK R V ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 20.08.2024)

¶27

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.07.2019 PASSED IN ECA NO.24/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, HASSAN, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶30

MFA 1234/2020 BETWEEN: SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., E-8, RICO INDUSTRIAL AREA SEETHAPURA, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN-302022. R/BY THE MANAGER SRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., NO.41, A J CHAMBERS OPPOSITE TO INDIAN OIL PETROL BUNK R V ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI JAYANAGARA, BENGALURU. NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER SHRIAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD NO.3/5, 3^RD FLOOR, S.V. ARCADE BILEKAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BANERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE-560076.

¶31

... APPELLANT

¶32

(BY SRI. B.C. SHIVANNE GOWDA, ADVCOATE)

¶33

AND:

¶34

SMT. SAMEENA W/O LATE KUNNI MOHAMMED AGED 33 YEARS.

¶35

KUM.FATHIMA MUNASSIRA D/O LATE KUNNI MOHAMMED AGED 8 YEARS.

¶36

KUM.MASHITHA D/O LATE KUNNI MOHAMMED AGED 6 YEARS

¶37

KUM. MUFEEDA D/O LATE KUNNI MOHAMMED AGED 4 YEARS RESPONDENT Nos. 2 TO 4 ARE MINORS R/BY THEIR MOTHER THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS MINOR GUARDIAN.

¶38

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶39

AISAMMA W/O LATE REHAMAN AGED 68 YEARS ALL ARE R/O ANEMAHAL VILLAGE SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT, R/AT EWS 760, 19TH CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGARA HASSAN-573201.

¶40

SRI HASSAINABB J S S/O SULEMAN MAJOR, .31, JAMMANAHALLI VILLAGE BELAGODU HOBLI SAKALESHAPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶41

....RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SMT. SHARADAMBA, ADVCOATE FOR R1 TO R5: NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶43

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:04.07.2019 PASSED IN ECA NO.24/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION, HASSAN, AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.7,20,810, WITH INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM ONE MONTH AFTER THE DATE OF ACCIDENT TILL ITS REALIZATION.

¶44

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶45

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶46

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶47

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶48

MFA No.490/2020 is filed by the claimants and MFA No.1234/2020 is filed by the Insurance Company under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Hassan in ECA No.24/2016.

¶49

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that the deceased Kunni Mohammed was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No.KA-11-7773 belonging to respondent No.1, who is the owner of the said lorry. On 02.12.2015, Kunni Mohammed went to the work as a cleaner in order to load the timber in the lorry at Kooti Village, near Shanivarasanthe. On 03.12.2015, after loading the timber to the lorry, the driver of the lorry stopped his lorry near Changadihalli road, and instructed Kunni Mohammed to take of lorry and parked the vehicle. When Kunni Mohammed was in charge of the parked lorry

¶50

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶51

and taking care of the load in the lorry, he died due to heart attack on 04.12.2015. The said accident occurred during the course of his employment and Kunni Mohammed died due to heart Attack as a result of work related stress and strain.

¶52

The claimants filed a petition under Section 22 of the Act seeking compensation. On service of notice, the respondents appeared through respective counsel and filed written statements in which the averments made in the petition were denied.

¶53

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimant No.1 has been examined as PW-1 and another witness as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined as RW-1 and got exhibited document namely Ex.R1 to 16. The Commissioner, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded

¶54

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶55

compensation of Rs.720,810/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from one month after the date of accident till realization and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company as well as the claimants have preferred the present appeals.

¶56

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following contentions:

¶57

a) Liability: There is no nexus between the death of deceased, Kunni Mohammed and nature of work discharged by him. The case of the claimants is that while loading the timber to the lorry, the deceased was supervising the same and due to stress related to work, he suffered heart attack. Basically, the deceased was a cleaner in the lorry and it is not his duty to supervise the loading of the timber to the lorry. To make a false claim, the claimants have filed a claim petition. As per the medical records, the death of the deceased is due to myocardial infarction and the deceased was suffering from

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶59

pre-existing heart ailment. Death is not due to stress and nature of work discharged by him. The Commissioner has erred in holding that the death is due to stress and there is nexus between the death and nature of work discharged by the deceased. The claimants have failed to prove that the deceased died during the course of his employment and due to stress. Therefore, the claimants are not entitled for any compensation.

¶60

b) Quantum of compensation: The Commissioner considering the age and avocation of the deceased, has rightly assessed the income and awarded just and reasonable compensation. It does not call for any interference.

¶61

With the above contentions, learned counsel for allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company.

¶62

The learned counsel for the claimants has raised the following counter contentions:

¶63

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶64

a) Liability: On 02.12.2015, the deceased went along with the driver of the lorry to bring a load of timber. He was working as a cleaner in the lorry and also to assist the driver to load the timber. It was also his obligation to take care of the vehicle and goods in the vehicle. After supervising the loading of the timber, he went to take rest and due to work stress, he suffered heart attack. Death is due to work stress. As per medical records, it is very clear that the death is due to heart attack. The owner of the lorry has been examined as RW-1 and he has clearly admitted in his evidence that deceased was an employee under him and he was assisting the driver to load the timber and he suffered heart attack due to stress. To disprove the same, the respondent-Insurance Company has not examined any other witnesses. Considering the evidence and materials available on record, the Commissioner has rightly held that there is nexus between the death of Kunni Mohammed and nature of work discharged by him. There is no error in the said finding of the Commissioner.

¶65

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶66

b) Quantum of compensation : The accident occurred

¶67

in the year 2015. As per Section 4(i)(a) of the Act, while computing the compensation, the minimum wages to be considered is Rs.8,000/- p.m. But the Commissioner has taken only Rs.7,000/p.m. Further, the overall compensation awarded by the Commissioner is on the lower side.

¶68

With the above contentions, learned counsel sought to allow the appeal filed by the claimants.

¶69

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner.

¶70

8. The substantial question of law that arises for consideration is

¶71

“Whether the Commissioner is justified in holding that deceased, Kunni Mohammed died during the course of his employment and fastening the liability on the Insurance Company?”

¶72

11 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶73

LIABILITY

¶74

The case of the claimants is that deceased, Kunni Mohammed was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing No.KA-11-7773 belonging to respondent No.1, who is the owner of the said lorry. On 02.12.2015, Kunni Mohammed went to the work as a cleaner in order to load the timber to the lorry at Kooti Village, near Shanivarasanthe. On 03.12.2015, after loading the timber to the lorry, the driver of the lorry stopped the lorry near Changadihalli road, and instructed Kunni Mohammed to take of lorry and parked the vehicle. When Kunni Mohammed was in charge of the parked lorry and taking care of the load in the lorry, he died due to heart attack on 04.12.2015.

¶75

To prove the case, the claimants have examined claimant No.1 as PW-1 and one Abdul Aziz as PW-2. They have reiterated the averments made in the claim petition. The owner of the lorry has been examined as RW-1. In his evidence, he has categorically stated that the deceased was an employee and working as a cleaner under him and

¶76

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶77

he was traveling along with the driver in lorry on 02.12.2015 to load the timber; on 03.12.2015, deceased

¶78

was assisting the driver for loading the timber and he was supervising and later in the evening at 7:00 pm., they parked the lorry at Shanivarasanthe and taking rest; Kunni Mohammed suffered heart attack due to work stress. In

¶79

cross examination of RW-1, nothing worthwhile has been elicited. In the medical records, the opinion of the doctor reads: “Death is due to respiratory failure secondary co acute severe myocardial infarction”. To disprove the case of the claimants, Insurance Company has taken a contention that there is no nexus between the death and nature of work. From the cross examination of PWs-1 and 2, it is clear the deceased was having history of heart attack and heart aliments and the same has been continued. Respondent No.2, Insurance Company has not examined any witness to prove their case.

¶80

In support of the arguments, learned counsel for the

¶81

Insurance Company has referred to the judgment of the

¶82

13 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶83

Apex Court in the case of Smt.Alka Shukla –v- Life

¶84

Insurance Corporation of India (Civil Appeal No.3413/2019 disposed of on 24.04.2019). In paragraph11 of the said judgment, the Apex Court has extracted the relevant portion of judgment in the case of Krishna Wati – v- LIC of India and in the said extracted portion, it is clear

¶85

that the claim petition has been filed due to death of accidental injuries. Hence, the judgment cited by the Insurance Company, is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

¶86

Therefore, considering the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and RW-1 and medical records, this Court is of the opinion that the Commissioner has rightly held that there is nexus between the death of the deceased, Kunni Mohammed and nature of work discharged by the deceased. There is no error in the said finding of the Commissioner.

¶87

QUANTUM OF COMPENSATION:

¶88

The claimants claim that deceased was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, but failed to produce supporting

¶89

14 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶90

documents to substantiate their claim. As per Section 4(1)

¶91

of the Act, the maximum wages fixed is Rs.8,000/- p.m. But the Commissioner has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.7,000/-. However, while computing the compensation, the Commissioner has rightly taken 50% of the income and applied factor of 201.66 to the age of the deceased. Therefore, the compensation is reassessed as under:

¶92

=Rs.4,000 (50% of Rs.8,000) X 201.66

¶93

=Rs.8,06,640/-

¶94

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶95

ORDER

¶96

a) The appeals are disposed of .

¶97

b) The judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed by Addl. Senior Civil Judge & Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Hassan in ECA

¶98

No.24/2016 is modified.

¶99

c) The claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.8,06,640/- .

¶100

15 - NC: 2024:KHC:34992 MFA No. 490 of 2020 C/W MFA No. 1234 of 2020

¶101

d) The Insurance Company is directed to deposit

¶102

the compensation amount along with interest within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶103

e) The apportionment, deposit and release of amount shall be made in accordance with the terms of the award of the Commissioner.

¶104

f) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be transferred to the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Hassan, for disbursement.

¶105

All pending I.As. are accordingly disposed of.

¶106

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶107

¶108

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Smt. Sameena v. Sri Hassainabb J S

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sameena v. Sri Hassainabb J S

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

Mahesh Shetty Vs Nagesh v

Sri. K v Reddappa @ Reddyappa K v Vs Sri. Byregowda

Mr. Murari Mani Vs Smt. H.R.Rupashree

Pradeep Acharya K Vs Pooja K

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Chinnadorai

Sri Ambarish B H Vs Mr R M Chandrappa