Claimants sought enhancement of employees' compensation awarded after a driver's foot was amputated in an accident during employment. The court held the Schedule I disability should be 50%, not 40%, recalculated loss of future earning at Rs.4,06,656 and partly allowed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 7199 OF 2018 (WC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ALL ARE R/O NO.3211, 1ST CROSS 3RD MAIN, RAJYOTSAVA NAGAR KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT BANGALORE-560078. …APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. A K BHAT.,ADVOCATE )
AND:
NO.54/4, 3RD CROSS, PRAKASH NAGAR BANGALORE-560 021.
(BY SRI. RAVI S SAMPRATHI.,ADVOCATE FOR R2: NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED: 02.11.2022)
THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WC ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:17.04.2018 PASSED ON ECA NO.142/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH-11), PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 30(1) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.04.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (SCCH-11) (for short, ‘the Commissioner) in ECA No.142/2015.
NC: 2024:KHC:32525 MFA No. 7199 of 2018
denying the averments made in the claim petition. The respondent No.1, despite service of notice, did not appear before the Tribunal and was placed ex-parte.
he was unable to his work as a driver. The Tribunal has assessed only 40% disability which is on the lower side. Hence, he sought for enhancement of compensation.
(i) Firstly, during the pendency of the appeal the claimant died. Therefore, the question of enhancement of compensation does not arise.
(ii) Secondly, even for the amputation of foot, as per the W.C.Act, on the basis of the evidence of the doctor, the Commissioner has rightly assessed the 40% disability.
(iii) Thirdly, considering the evidence of the parties and the evidence of the doctor, the overall compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and reasonable. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.
“Whether the Commissioner was justified in holding that the appellant has sustained only 40% functional disability?”
applicable is 169.44. The loss of future earning has been
re-assessed as follows:
Rs.8,000*60%169.4450% = Rs.4,06,656/-.
To that effect, the judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is modified.
(i) The appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is modified as above.
(iii) In view of the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by
this Court, the appellants not entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation for the delayed period of 50 days in filing the appeal.
Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE
CM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Commissioner was justified in assessing the claimant's functional disability at only 40% for amputation of a foot sustained in the course of employment?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
B Manjula
Sudarshan M
Suresh
K. S. Vishwanatha
Legal Manager, M/s. Liberty Videocon General Ins. Co. Ltd.
H.T. Narendra Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
