Zeenath Bi Vs Royal Sundaram Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, 1923 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 17.07.2019 PASSED IN E.C.A NO.03/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHANNAGIRI, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶29

THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge Judgment and award dated 17.07.2019 in E.C.A No.03/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channagiri [hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”].

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:2628 MFA No. 4295 of 2020

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

By the Impugned Judgment, the appellants have been awarded a compensation of Rs.6,68,130/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. The liability has been fixed on respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

¶36

The brief facts of the case are that the deceased was working as Coolie/loader with respondent No.2. During the course of employment, Driver of the Tractor drove the same in rash and negligent manner and lost control of the vehicle and caused accident. Due to the accident, the deceased Kaleem died on the spot.

¶37

The learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the fact that the accident took place in the course of employment.

¶38

The learned counsel for the appellant raises two contentions. He submits that the notional income was wrongly taken by the learned Trial Court, since the accident occurred on 03.10.2016.

¶39

As per Schedule- IV of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, monthly income was to be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month. However, the learned Trial Court has taken the same as

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:2628 MFA No. 4295 of 2020

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Rs.6,000/- per month. Reliance in this behalf is placed on paragraph 4 of the Impugned Judgment.

¶44

"4. The Respondent no.2 insurance company contending that the said driver was not at all having DL., that the said tractor was used for commercial purpose and not for agricultural purpose, that they have no employee & employer relationship between the deceased & respondent No.1 therefore the respondent no.2 insurance company has contended that they are not liable to indemnify the said petitioner, and prays for the dismissal of the petition."

¶45

In addition, learned counsel points out to the provisions

¶46

of Section 4A(3)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 to contend that the statute provides for statutory interest at the rate of 12%. However, the learned Trial Court has wrongly awarded interest at the rate of 6%.

¶47

Learned counsel for the respondent fairly submits that so far as interest is concerned, there can be no dispute as to the award interest at the rate of 12%. He further submits that as per the Notification issued, the wages for the year 2016 would be Rs.8,000/- per month.

¶48

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:2628 MFA No. 4295 of 2020

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

In view of the consensus of the parties, the compensation

¶51

awarded is required to be enhanced in the following manner.

¶52

50% of Rs.8,000/-	Rs.4,000/-
Rs.4,000/- X 222.71 =	Rs.8,90,840/-
Less: Amount awarded	- Rs.6,68,130/-
Enhanced compensation	Rs.2,22,710/-

¶53

The interest is also required to be calculated at 12% as per the statute.

¶54

Hence, the appellants are entitled to total compensation of Rs.8,90,840/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶55

Accordingly, the Court proceeds to pass the following directions:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The appeal is disposed of .

¶58

(ii) The Impugned Judgment and Award dated 17.07.2019 in E.C.A.No.03/2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Channagiri is modified to the

¶59

6 -

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:2628 MFA No. 4295 of 2020

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

extent that the appellants are entitled to enhanced

¶63

compensation of Rs.2,22,710/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, in addition to Rs.6,68,130/- that has been awarded by the Trial Court.

¶64

(iii) The remaining portion of the Impugned Judgment of the learned Trial Court remains undisturbed.

¶65

(iv) The Insurance Company shall deposit the balance enhanced compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶66

(v) The Registry is directed to draw the modified Award accordingly.

¶67

Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

¶68

HR

¶69

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Zeenath Bi v. Royal Sundaram Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zeenath Bi v. Royal Sundaram Gen Ins Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Somanna Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Mr. Mahadevanayaka Vs Mr. Venkataranganayaka

Sri. Sankalli Nagappa Vs Sankalli Mugappa

Smt Perumamma Vs Sri. Dasaiah

The President Vs Sri Nagaraj

Smt. Ramakka Vs Sri. v. Hari Das