Partly allowed

P Venkatesh v. Vijayakumar

Karnataka HC23 Sept 2024MFA/9177/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Claimant mechanic injured while unloading bikes at a TVS showroom sought enhancement of workman compensation. The court accepted his age as 40 based on transfer certificate and Aadhar card, reassessed monthly income at Rs.5,500/- and enhanced compensation from Rs.35,170/- to Rs.49,243/- with interest.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.49,243/- with interest @12% p.a.; respondents directed to deposit the amount.

P Venkatesh Vs Vijayakumar — Motor Accident Claims | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39307 MFA No. 9177 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 9177 OF 2018 (WC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

P VENKATESH S/O PAKKIRAPPA BATHI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS SHOW ROOM MECHANIC R/O BEHIND CHAMUNDESHARI TALKIES 2ND CROSS, NITTUVALLI DAVANAGERE-577004

¶8

…APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. PREMKUMAR C S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

1. VIJAYAKUMAR

¶12

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

S/O UJJAPPA KARIBEVARA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OWNER CUM PARTNER OF UJWAL T V S SHOW ROOM VINAYAKA NAGAR P B ROAD DAVANAGERE-577004.

¶14

2. DEEPAK KUMAR

¶15

S/O LATE SIDDESHANNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS OWNER CUM PARTNER OF UJWAL T V S SHOW ROOM VINAYAKA NAGAR P B ROAD DAVANAGERE-577004.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH R NELKUDRI .,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39307 MFA No. 9177 of 2018

¶18

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:02.03.2018 PASSED ON ECA NO.03/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, 6TH MACT, DAVANAGERE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶19

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

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is filed by the claimant under Section 30(1)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, ‘the Act’) being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 02.03.2018 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and VI MACT, Davanagere (for short, ‘the Commissioner) in ECA No.03/2017.

¶23

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that the claimant was working as a Mechanic in the TVS showroom belonging to respondent Nos. 1 and 2. On 16.12.2016, at about 1.00 p.m., the claimant was unloading the bikes from lorry as per the directions of the respondent, the vehicles were fallen on him and thereby

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39307 MFA No. 9177 of 2018

¶25

he sustained injuries on his head, nose, ears and leg

¶26

during the course of employment.

¶27

The claimant filed a claim petition under the Act before the Commissioner, seeking compensation. It was pleaded that he has spent huge amount towards medical expenses. It was further pleaded that the respondent No.1 was paying a salary of Rs.5,500/- per month and Rs.1,200/- as bata. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred when he was under the employment of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶28

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition.

¶29

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. On behalf of the claimant, he himself was examined as PW1 and Dr.T.M.Ravinath was examined as PW2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P30. On behalf of the respondents, two witnesses were

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39307 MFA No. 9177 of 2018

¶31

examined as RW1 and RW2 and got exhibited documents as Exs. R1 to R8. The Commissioner, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the incident occurred in the course of employment under the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and further held that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.35,170/- along with interest @ 12% p.a. Being aggrieved, the claimant has filed this appeal.

¶32

Learned counsel for the claimant raised the following contentions:

¶33

(i) Firstly, at the time of the accident the claimant was drawing a salary of Rs.5,500/- per month and Rs.1,200/- as bata, but the Commissioner has assessed the notional income at Rs.5,000/- per month, which is on the lower side.

¶34

(ii) Secondly, at the time of the accident the claimant was aged about 40 years. The Commissioner has wrongly assessed the age as 55 years. To prove his age, he has produced his SSLC marks card and the Adhar card

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39307 MFA No. 9177 of 2018

¶36

before this Court to show that his date of birth is

¶37

15.07.1976. Hence, he sought to allow the appeal.

¶38

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has raised the following countercontentions:

¶39

(i) Firstly, the respondents are the employers and they were paying a salary of Rs.5,000/ per month. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the monthly income as Rs.5,000/-.

¶40

(ii) Secondly, the claimant has not produced any document before the Commissioner to prove that his age

¶41

was 40 years at the time of the accident. The Commissioner, taking into consideration the medical records, has rightly assessed the age of the claimant as 55 years. Hence, sought to dismiss the appeal.

¶42

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused

¶43

the judgment and award and the original records.

¶44

The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal:

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39307 MFA No. 9177 of 2018

¶46

“Whether the Commissioner was justified in assessing the age of the claimant as 55 years instead of 40 years even though the claimant claims that he was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident?”

¶47

It is not in dispute that the claimant has suffered injuries during the course of employment and it is also not in dispute that there is an employee and employer relationship between the claimant and the respondents.

¶48

The specific case of the claimant is that he was getting a salary of Rs.5,500/- and Rs.1,200/- as bata per month. Considering the evidence of the claimant, the monthly income is assessed as Rs.5,500/- per month.

¶49

In respect of the age of the claimant is concerned, he has filed an application for production of additional documents. Along with the application he has produced the Transfer Certificate issued by the Education Department. He has also produced the Aadhar card to show that his date of birth is 15.07.1976. The said

¶50

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39307 MFA No. 9177 of 2018

¶51

application is allowed vide separate order. Considering the said documents, it is very clear that as on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years. The factor applicable to his age group is 184.17. Accordingly, 'loss of future income' is calculated as hereunder:

¶52

5400*60%184.177% = Rs.42,543/-

¶53

The substantial question is answered accordingly.

¶54

The compensation awarded by the Commissioner

¶55

under the head ‘medical expenses’ at Rs.6,700/- is just and reasonable.

¶56

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶57

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

(ii) The judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is modified.

¶59

(iii) The claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.49,243/- in place of Rs.35,170/- awarded by the Commissioner.

¶60

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39307 MFA No. 9177 of 2018

¶61

(iv) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount along with interest @ 12% p.a. from one month from the date of the accident till the date of realization.

¶62

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶63

CM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59

P Venkatesh v. Vijayakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Venkatesh v. Vijayakumar

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. Rajesha Vs Sri. Sharath H.D.

Sri Chikkarudraiah R Vs The New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Mani. a Vs M/S. Hariharan Logistics Parthiban

S. Shivakumara Swamy Vs G. N. Shivakumar

Shriram Gic Ltd. Vs Sri. Shameemthaz

Sri Srinivas K T Vs Sri Manjunath R K