Allowed

Smt Rangamma v. Smt Kariyamma

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2024MFA/7061/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act. The court held that the deceased's monthly income should be considered as Rs.8,000/- post-amendment, enhancing compensation from Rs.5,49,875/- to Rs.8,79,800/- with 12% interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs. 5,49,875/- to Rs. 8,79,800/-; interest at 12% p.a. awarded; deposit directed.

Smt Rangamma Vs Smt Kariyamma — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38790 MFA No. 7061 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7061 OF 2021 (ECA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RANGAMMA, W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT49 YEARS

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATHA, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶9

LOKAMMA, D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶10

ALL ARE R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE

¶11

Digitally signed by AASEEFA PARVEEN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 139

¶13

(BY SRI. SUNIL K.N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAMESH K.R., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…APPELLANTS

¶15

AND:

¶16

SMT. KARIYAMMA W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED MAJOR, R/O GOWDAGERE VILLAGE, SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 139

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38790 MFA No. 7061 of 2021

¶19

THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MICRO OFFICE, 1^ST FLOOR, OPP T.K.P LODGE, NH.4, SIRA TOWN, SIRA TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 137

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. P.S. JAGADEESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.06.2017 PASSED IN ECA NO.22/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ADDITIONAL MACT, SIRA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

Heard Sri.Sunil K.N learned counsel who represents Sri.Ramesh K.R, learned counsel on record for the appellants as well as Sri.P.S.Jagadeesh learned counsel who represents Sri.P.B.Raju learned counsel on record for respondent No.2.

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:38790 MFA No. 7061 of 2021

¶28

Challenge in this appeal is the order that is rendered by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Sira in E.C.A. No.22/2014 dated 16.06.2017. The undisputed facts of the case are as under:

¶29

1) The deceased Basavaraju (herein after referred to as 'deceased' for brevity) was the employee of 1^st respondent.

¶30

2) The deceased died during the course of employment under 1^st respondent.

¶31

3) The first claimant is the mother, the 2^nd claimant is the brother and 3^rd claimant is the sister of the deceased.

¶32

On hearing Sri.Sunil K.N, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.P.S.Jagadeesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the substantial question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as under:-

¶33

Whether the Commissioner for Employees Compensation is justified in considering the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/- per month?

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:38790 MFA No. 7061 of 2021

¶35

Learned counsel Sri.Sunil K.N, for appellants submits that the accident occurred in the year 2011. By the amendment that brought out on 31.05.2010 to the Employees Compensation Act, the notional income is required to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month and therefore the tribunal ought to have taken the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month while determining the compensation.

¶36

Learned counsel Sri.P.S.Jagadeesh though states that the amount awarded as compensation is justifiable, did not deny the fact that in the light of the amendment brought out, the notional income is required to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. Thus, taking the notional income as Rs.8,000/- per month, deducting 50% of it and applying the proper factor i.e., 219.95, the compensation which the appellants are entitled to will be Rs.8,79,800/-.

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:38790 MFA No. 7061 of 2021

¶38

Therefore the point taken up for discussion is answered holding that the income is required to be considered as Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶39

Thus, the entitlement of the appellants for compensation is Rs.8,79,800/-.

¶40

During the course of submission, learned counsel for the appellants also raised a contention with regard to the rate of interest. The Commissioner for Employees Compensation awarded compensation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. However, the interest that is required to be awarded is 12%.

¶41

Thus, the appeal is disposed of with the following

¶42

ORDER

¶43

i. The appeal is allowed.

¶44

ii. The compensation that is granted by the Commissioner for Employees Compensation, Sira through orders in E.C.A. No.22/2014 dated

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:38790 MFA No. 7061 of 2021

¶46

16.06.2017 is enhanced from Rs.5,49,875/- to

¶47

Rs.8,79,800/-.

¶48

iii. The entire award amount carries interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

¶49

iv. The 2^nd respondent is directed to deposit the entire award amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

v. However, as per orders on IA No.1/2021, the appellants are not entitled for interest for the period of delay of 999 days.

¶51

Sd/(DR.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

¶52

VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Smt Rangamma v. Smt Kariyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rangamma v. Smt Kariyamma

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

The Manager Vs Mallikarjunaswamy

MD Munthakim Ulla Vs the Manager

Smt Bharathi Vs Sri Ramavath Laxme Ram Naik

Smt. Lalithamma Vs Sri. Santhosh Kumar K G

Sri Ashfaq Ahmed Vs M/S National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Smt. Kavitha Basavaraj Uppar Vs Aishwarya Chakraborty