The Divisional Manager Vs Jahangir S/O. Abdul Bidiwale

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8951 MFA No. 20664 of 2012

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20664 OF 2012 (WC)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BELAGAVI, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, TP HUB, II FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX, NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBBALLI-580 029.

¶8

… APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SRI. G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI. JAHANGIR S/O. ABDUL BIDIWALE, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O: H.NO. KASAI GALLI, KHADDA, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶12

Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH DHARWAD

¶13

SRI. INAS MATI RODRIGOUS, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: H.NO. 2761, KASAI GALLI, BELGAUM, DIST: BELGAUM.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. S.C. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. RAGHUVEER P. KALWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT, 1923, PRAYING TO THE SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED: 21/10/2011, PASSED IN WC/SR NO.60/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, SUB-DIVISION-1, BELGAUM.

¶17

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8951 MFA No. 20664 of 2012

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)

¶22

This appeal is filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 21.10.2011 passed in WC/SR No.60/2009 on the file of Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-division-1, Belgaum¹ , questioning the quantum of compensation as well as questioning sustaining employment injuries by the claimant.

¶23

For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

¶24

It is the case of the claimant that he had sustained employment injuries on 06.04.2008 out of and in the course of employment and when the petition was filed by the claimant, the learned Commissioner has awarded compensation of Rs.1,10,224/-.

¶25

1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short)

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8951 MFA No. 20664 of 2012

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

¶29

Company submitted that the accident is caused on 06.04.2008, but the claimant was admitted to the hospital on 10.04.2008 at 3.00 pm, and the Police complaint was lodged on 10.04.2008. Therefore, within these four days

¶30

of gap there was no any effort to take treatment, therefore, suspected the injuries sustained by the claimant out of and in the course of employment, therefore, submitted that there is no nexus between injuries sustained by the claimant and employment. Further stated that the Doctor has held partial disability just for fracture of patella. Therefore, the Insurance Company challenged on quantum of compensation.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant justified the order passed by the learned Commissioner.

¶32

In the present case, it is stated that the accident was caused on 06.04.2008 and complaint was

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8951 MFA No. 20664 of 2012

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

lodged before the Police on 10.04.2008. Upon considering the arguments addressed by the counsel for the Insurance Company that only on 10.04.2008 the claimant admitted to the hospital, the documentary evidence at Ex.P-3 wound certificate is perused, wherein the history is shown

¶36

as flam over on right knee on 06.04.2008. Though in the said wound certificate, the person first seen by the Doctor in hospital on 10.04.2008, but at the top of the wound certificate it is shown that the inpatient was registered on 07.04.2008. Therefore, from the wound certificate it is proved that the claimant had sustained employment injuries on 06.04.2008 and had been to hospital for treatment as inpatient and on the next day on 07.04.2008 he was admitted and registered as inpatient, therefore, soon after the incident of sustaining employment injuries, the claimant is proved to be admitted to the hospital on 06.042008 itself, but he took treatment as inpatient w.e.f. 07.04.2008. Considering these eventualities, just because there is delay in lodging the compliant before the Police

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8951 MFA No. 20664 of 2012

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

cannot be the ground to suspect the employment injuries sustained by the claimant, but the peculiar facts and circumstances on record, particularly wound certificate proved the fact that on 06.04.2008 itself the claimant was admitted to the hospital. Therefore, there is no merit found in the submission made by the Insurance Company. Hence, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

Upon considering the documentary evidence at Ex.P-6/wound certificate proved the fact that the claimant had suffered fracture of right patella and fracture of ribs on both sides and fracture of left clavicle. Though in the wound certificate it is stated that fracture of ribs and fracture to the right clavicle as old injuries, but that are clarified by the Doctor/PW-2 that these injuries are fresh fractures. Therefore, the claimant being workman had suffered three fracture injuries as above stated. Therefore, the Doctor has stated and assessed disability at 40% towards permanent physically disability. In the course of

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8951 MFA No. 20664 of 2012

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

cross-examination, the Doctor has admitted that he has given disability certificate only in respect of fracture of patella. In the wound certificate, it is mentioned that fracture to clavicle and ribs are old one. Therefore, considering the evidence of the Doctor that he has not given wound certificate in respect of the fracture of left clavicle and fracture of ribs coupled with mentioning old fracture injuries, the assessment of disability made by the doctor is only in respect of the fracture of right patella. Therefore, in respect of fracture of right patella assessment of disability made by the Doctor at 40% is on higher side. Hence, it is reduced to 25% as the claimant suffered fracture to the knee joint and the claimant is the coolie by profession, therefore, this 25% of disability affects the earning capacity of the claimant. Accordingly, it is taken as 25% of disability.

¶44

The accident occurred in the year 2008, the monthly wage is to be taken as Rs.4,000/- per month but the Commissioner has committed error by taking wage of

¶45

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8951 MFA No. 20664 of 2012

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month. There is no dispute with regard to age of the claimant i.e., 45 years as on the date of accident. The relevant factor that is applicable to the age of the deceased is 169.44. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for compensation as under:

¶48

Rs.1,01,664/- (Rs.4,000 x 60% x 25% x 169.44).

¶49

Therefore, the claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,01,664/as against Rs.1,10,224/- awarded by the Commissioner.

¶50

The Trial Court committed error while awarding

¶51

interest after 30 days from the date of order, which is not correct. The interest shall be payable at 12% after 30 days from the date of accident till realization. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part.

¶52

In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶53

ORDER

¶54

i. The appeal is allowed in part .

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8951 MFA No. 20664 of 2012

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

ii. The judgment and award dated 21.10.2011 passed in WC/SR No.60/2009 on the file of Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-division-1, Belgaum, is modified.

¶58

iii. The claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,01,664/- along with interest at the rate of 12% after 30 days from the date of accident till realization, as against Rs.1,10,224/awarded by the Commissioner.

¶59

iv. The insurance company shall deposit the compensation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶60