Partly allowed

Ganesh v. N G Vijaya

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2024MFA/7977/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A workman injured in a 2011 accident while working as a cleaner appealed under Section 30(1) WC Act to enhance his compensation. The court reassessed wages at Rs.8,000 with factor 216.91 and 20% disability, quantifying loss of earning capacity at Rs.2,08,234 and awarding total compensation of Rs.2,15,880.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation of Rs.98,998 plus 12% p.a. interest from date of accident till realization; impugned award modified; no costs.

Ganesh Vs N G Vijaya — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:48320 MFA No. 7977 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.7977 OF 2013 (WC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GANESH S/O RUDRAPPA @ RUDRACHARI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/O IN FRONT OF SS HOSPITAL INDUSTRIAL AREA, DAVANAGERE – 577001.

¶10

…APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI. SHASHIDHARA R.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PAVITHRA B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

N G VIJAYA, S/O RUDRAPPA, AGE MAJOR, OWNER OF LORRY BEARING NO. KA-17/B-9595, R/O # 1659/, OPP: ITI COLLEGE, VIDYANAGAR DAVANAGERE – 577001.

¶15

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD DAVANAGERE – 577001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1- NOTICE DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 14.02.2018)

¶16

THIS MFA FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WC ACT AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 26.7.2013 PASSED IN KA AA DA/ KA NA PA/CR-

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:48320 MFA No. 7977 of 2013

¶19

151/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

¶22

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶23

This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 26.07.2013 passed in KA.AA DA/KANAPA/CR.No.151/2011 on the file of Labour Officer cum Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere, seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Labour Court.

¶24

The factum of accident, the injuries sustained by the claimant out of and in the course of employment and liability fastened on the Insurance Company are not in dispute.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:48320 MFA No. 7977 of 2013

¶27

Heard the arguments from both sides and

¶28

perused the records.

¶29

In the present case, the learned Commissioner by holding monthly income of Rs.4,196/- and considering the disability suffered by the claimant at 20%, awarded compensation of Rs.1,09,236/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and also medical reimbursement of Rs.7,646/- is awarded.

¶30

The accident has caused on 12.06.2011 and in the said accident, the claimant has suffered employment injuries out of and in the course of employment. It is not disputed that the claimant was working as a cleaner under the employment of respondent No.1. Since, the accident has occurred on 12.06.2011, therefore, monthly wages is taken at Rs.8,000/- p.m. The doctor has assessed the functional disability suffered by the claimant at 20%, the claimant has suffered fracture of type III-B compound fracture of right talus and fracture of right fibula. Therefore, assessment made by the Doctor at 20%

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:48320 MFA No. 7977 of 2013

¶32

towards permanent physical disability suffered by the

¶33

claimant is found to be correct.

¶34

The claimant was aged 25 years, accordingly, the relevant factor applicable is 216.91. The claimant has suffered permanent physical disability at 20%. Therefore, the compensation under the head loss of earning capacity due to disability is hereby re-assessed and quantified as follows:

¶35

Rs.8,000/- X 60/100 X 216.91 X 20/100 = Rs.2,08,234/-.

¶36

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to compensation

¶37

of Rs.2,08,234/- under the head ‘loss of earning capacity due to disability’.

¶38

The learned Commissioner has awarded a

¶39

compensation of Rs.7,646/towards ‘medical

¶40

reimbursement’ as per the actual medical bills produced, which is found to be correct. Hence, the same is kept in tact.

¶41

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48320 MFA No. 7977 of 2013

¶42

Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant is entitled to

¶43

compensation under the following heads:

¶44

Sl. No.	Heads	Awarded by the Labour Court	Awarded by this Court
1.	Loss of earning capacity due to disability	Rs.1,09,236/-	Rs.2,08,234/-
2.	Medical reimbursement	Rs.7,646/-	Rs.7,646/-
	Total	Rs.1,16,882/-	Rs.2,15,880/-

¶45

The learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.1,16,882/-, but the appellant/claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,15,880/-. Hence, the appellant/claimant is entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.98,998/- (Rs.2,15,880/Rs.1,16,882/-), along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Labour Court.

¶46

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The appeal is allowed-in-part .

¶49

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48320 MFA No. 7977 of 2013

¶50

ii. The impugned judgment and award dated 26.07.2013 passed in KA.AA.DA/KANAPA/CR.No.151/2011 on the file of the Labour Officer cum Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere, is hereby modified holding that the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs.98,998/- along with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of accident till its realization, in addition to what has been awarded by the Labour Court.

¶51

iii. No order as to costs.

¶52

iv. The rest of the observations made by the learned Commissioner are kept in tact.

¶53

v. Draw award accordingly.

¶54

SD/(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE

¶55

SRA

¶56

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Ganesh v. N G Vijaya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh v. N G Vijaya

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. Prakash Vittal Prabhu Vs Sri. Ramu

Sri Suresh Vs M/S Sky Wings Car Rentals

Sri. Mohammed Shakeer Vs M/S Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

B Cheluvaraju Vs Smt Savitramma

Sri R Jai Kumar Vs Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

Sri. Chandan P. Vs Sri. Sreenivasaiah R.