A coffee estate labourer injured carrying a ladder during employment sought enhancement of compensation under the Employees Compensation Act for 13.33% whole-body disability. The High Court upheld the trial court's computation of Rs.1,19,586/- but awarded an additional global sum of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 12% per annum, payable by the insurer.
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.
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
M.F.A NO. 8469 OF 2019 (WC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH S/O NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O HARMAKKI GONIBEEDU HOBLI MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. VENKATE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
1 . THE PROPRIETOR SURENDRA COFFEE ESTATE R/O ANAJURU GONIBEEDU HOBLI MUDIGERE TALUK CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
2 . THE MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED YASHORAM CHAMBERS RATHNAGIRI ROAD CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06/07/2019, PASSED IN ECA NO.02/2018, ON THE FILE
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MUDIGERE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This appeal by the appellant who has suffered
injuries during his employment, assails the Judgment and Award dated 6.7.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Mudigere in ECA No.2/2018.
and other parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to M.G.M.Hospital, Mudigere by respondent no.1 where he
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
took first aid treatment and then as per the advise of the doctor, he was shifted to M.G.Hospital, Chikamagalur where he took treatment as in-patient from 25.6.2017 to 10.07.2017. It is the case of the appellant that due to the accident, he is unable to do any work and he is bed ridden and is permanently disabled. Inspite of the treatment, he is unable to do any work and he has to depend on others for his day-to-day activities. He contends that he sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment under respondent no.1- Management. The appellant approached respondent-Management for compensation. But, since it is denied, he filed the claim petition before the trial Court.
through their counsel and filed objection statement separately. Respondent no.1 admitted about employment of appellant in his coffee estate and also occurrence of accident. But, respondent no.1 contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of
petitioner/appellant himself. Further, he contended that he obtained W.C.Policy from respondent no.2 which was valid and effective as on the date of accident and contended that respondent no.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.
and restricted to the insured declared wages. The penalty and the interest on the award amount has to be saddled on respondent no.1. The policy covers reimbursement of Rs.25,000/- per employee towards medical expenses only. The respondent no.2 does not admit about the injury sustained by the claimant during employment and there
exists no relationship between petitioner and respondent no.1 as that of employer and employee. the disability certificate so produced is concocted, the petitioner is put to strict proof. In the event the claimant is held entitled for compensation, this respondent is not liable t pay the interest on the compensation amount. The injuries are simple in nature. The respondent no.1 has to produce the wage register, attendance register, voucher and other documents to prove the employment of the petitioner. Amongst other grounds, it is prayed by respondent no.2 to dismiss the petition.
the following issues for its consideration:
The trial Court has also taken into consideration the
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
attendance register as per Ex.R1 and 2, letter Ex.R3, Postal cover-Ex.R4 and Insurance Policy as per Ex.R5 marked on behalf of respondents. Referring to Section 4 of Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 and taking into consideration the relevant factor into consideration, the trial Court awarded a compensation of Rs.1,19,586/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till its realization from respondent. The trial Court held respondent nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, however, directed the insurer to deposit
the compensation amount within one month from the date of the order together with interest.
appellant is before this Court in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
now he has been permanently disabled. His whole family is depending upon him. He is deprived of his livelihood. According to him, the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, as per the grounds urged in the appeal memo, it is prayed by the counsel for the appellant to enhance the compensation amount.
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
approximately comes to 13.33%. The trial Court considered the permanent total disability. According to Workmen Compensation Insurance Claim Amount for various disabilities 60% of monthly wages to be considered and relevant age factor of the present employee is 186.90 having regard to the age. Thus, the trial Court calculated the total compensation payable to the appellant to Rs.1,19,586/-. The trial Court has calculated the compensation on the basis of age and wages of the appellant. The age is considered as 39 years and wages as Rs.8,000/-. The injuries sustained by the appellant are taken into consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
treated as in-patient in his hospital from 25.6.2017 and 10.7.2017 and further he was advised to take bed rest for
a period of eight weeks. That means, for about three months this petitioner was idle without any employment and has lost his income during laid up period. According to doctor, on getting the x-ray and on clinical examination the petitioner has sustained 40% permanent physical disability to his 'dorso lumbar trunk' because of his disability it is difficult for him to work long period and carry heavy object and to do any other hard manual work. He is advised to use LS Belt permanently. He has issued Ex.P8 the disability certificate. He has been cross-examined by respondent no.1 and 2 but, nothing worth is elicited though intensive cross-examination is directed to him. It is suggested that, if the petitioner could take a treatment in major hospital, the percentage of disability would have been less. But, this suggestion is denied by him. But, admits that, petitioner can carry out his day to day activities without any assistance.
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
sustaining of permanent disability to the petitioner. Other documents are not denied by the respondents while marking them.
issueno.4 has held that, in view of the evidence brought on record by the petitioner, his monthly income was Rs.8,000/as per the central notification dated 31.05.2010. Therefore, the petitioner's income is calculated at Rs.8,000/- per month as on the date of said injury sustained by him during the course of his employment. I do not find any mistake or error in such a conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court as it is in accordance with the central notification.
the aforesaid fracture and compression and despite taking treatment both as in-patient and outpatient and as per doctor he has suffered 40% disability as per his evidence. As per the evidence of the doctor, the petitioner took
treatment as in-patent for 15 days and thereafter, he was advised to undergo bed rest for eight weeks. It has come in the evidence of the doctor that there is no difficult for the petitioner to do his day to day activities without any assistance. But, anyhow he has sustained disability to some extent and rightly the trial Court has reckoned his disability to 13.33% which in my opinion is based upon the evidence placed on record. By this time, the injuries must have been healed and disability must have been reduced to a considerable extent as because he was quite young when he sustained injuries. Therefore, it is held that, the petitioner has lost his working capacity to the extent of 13.33% to the whole body as held by the trial Court. I do not find any error in such finding.
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
it is stated that with regard to permanent total disability, 60% of the monthly wage is to be taken based upon the relevant age factor subject to a minimum of RS.1,40,000/If that analogy is applied, rightly the Tribunal has taken 60% of the monthly wages of the petitioner and has applied multiple as the relevant factor to determine the compensation under the head of loss of earnings and arrived at Rs.1,19,586/- which in my opinion is just and proper. The compensation so arrived at by the trial Court at Rs.1,19,586/- does not require any interference.
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
attendant charges etc. In the absence of any evidence, taking into consideration all these factors, if a global amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded, it would meet the ends of justice. The Tribunal has awarded interest on the above amount at 12% placing reliance on the Judgment in Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and Others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 298 from the date of accident till realization.
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
compensation awarded in this appeal with interest at 12%
p.a. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in-part .
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudigere in ECA No.2/2018 is modified.
(iii) Appellant-employee is awarded a global compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest
at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till actual realization in addition to the compensation awarded by the trial Court.
directed to deposit the compensation awarded by the trial Court if not already deposited and also the enhanced compensation along with interest at 12% from the date of accident till realization.
NC: 2024:KHC:53061 MFA No. 8469 of 2019
to the concerned trial Court
Registry to draw the modified award accordingly.
Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE
SK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant workman was entitled to enhancement of compensation beyond Rs.1,19,586/- awarded for permanent partial disability of 13.33%.
What global compensation should be awarded for medical and related expenses in the absence of documentary proof.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd and OthersRelied on¶18
(2014) 2 SCC 298 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Ramesh s/o Nanjaiah
The Proprietor Surendra Coffee Estate
The Manager National Insurance Company Limited
Ramachandra D. Huddar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
