Sri Krishna N Devadiga Vs Sri Krishna S Nayak

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 26.08.2016 PASSED IN ECA.NO.43/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is filed by the appellant/injured workman under Section 30(1) of W.C. Act, challenging the judgment and award dated 26.08.2016 passed in ECA No.43/2014 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura.

¶29

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the both sides. The ranks of the parties are retained as per Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

¶30

The petitioner/injured workman met with an accident during the course of employment on 23.05.2011 and filed petition before the Trial Court for compensation of Rs.26,91,000/-. The Trial Court considering the entire evidence

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:36307 MFA No. 8309 of 2016

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CNR: KAHC010478842016

¶34

on record granted an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from expiry of one month from the date of the accident. Being aggrieved by the said order, this appeal is filed and mainly contended that the injured/workman sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient from 23.05.2012 to 02.06.2012 i.e., 9 days. It is further stated that the appellant/injured was working as a cleaner-cum-conductor and earning Rs.12,000/- per month, including bata of Rs.100/- per day. But the Trial Court has considered his income as Rs.6,500/- per month, which is on the lower side. The definition of wages in Section 2(1)(m) of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, includes any benefit received by the employee which is capable of being estimated in money. But the Trial Court has not considered that the appellant was receiving Rs.100/- per day as bata. The Trial Court has not granted any amount under the heads transportation, food and nourishment, medical expenses and future medical expenses. Therefore, the following substantial questions of law is framed.

¶35

"a) Whether the Court below is justified in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.6,500/-, when

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:36307 MFA No. 8309 of 2016

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CNR: KAHC010478842016

¶39

the material on record shows that the claimant is earning about Rs.12,000/- per month?

¶40

b) In view of Section 2(1)(m) of the Employees Compensation Act, whether the court below is justified in ignoring the bata Rs.100/- per day being earned by the claimant?

¶41

c) Whether the court below is justified in declining to grant compensation towards future medical expenses, food and nourishment?"

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 stated that as the appellant/injured workman had not produced any income proof, the Trial Court rightly considered his income as Rs.6,500/- per month. The appellant is not entitled to medical expenses from the insurer and the said amount of medical expenses is to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly granted a reasonable compensation and it is to be confirmed.

¶43

Though it is stated that the petitioner was working as a cleaner-cum-conductor in the passenger tempo and earning Rs.12,000/- per month, he has not filed any income proof. Considering the fact that he met with an accident in the year 2011, as per the General Yearly Minimum Wages Schedule

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:36307 MFA No. 8309 of 2016

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

CNR: KAHC010478842016

¶47

(GYMS), this Court finds it reasonable to take his income as Rs.8,000/- per month. He was aged 32 years and the relevant factor is '203.85'. The petitioner sustained fracture of right leg. He has undergone surgery and rod was fixed. He was advised

¶48

to take rest for two years. The petitioner was treated as an outpatient for a period of 15 times. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient for nine days. As per Ex.P.7medical records, the petitioner sustained fracture of 1/3^rd of the right leg and laceration of the right leg, which is grievous in nature. The petitioner also examined the doctor as PW.2 and he assessed the disability as 20% to the right lower limb. The Trial Court has considered the disability as 20% relying upon the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, this Court finds it reasonable to take the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.8,000/-. This is a case of disability, as per Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, 60% of the monthly income is taken into consideration, which comes to Rs.4,800/- per month (8,000x60%). Accordingly, the compensation comes to Rs.1,95,696/- (4,800x203.85x20%). It is observed by the Trial Court that the petitioner stated that he incurred a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- towards medical expenses.

¶49

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:36307 MFA No. 8309 of 2016

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

CNR: KAHC010478842016

¶52

But as per Ex.P.4-medical bills, the petitioner incurred only Rs.42,947/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant the said amount under the head medical expenses.

¶53

Thus in all, compensation awarded by this Court is

¶54

as below:

¶55

Sl.Nos.	Particulars	Amount in Rs.
1.	Towards compensation	1,95,696/-
2	Towards medical expenses	42,947/-
	Total	2,38,643/-

¶56

Hence, the appellant-workman is entitled for a total

¶57

compensation of Rs.2,38,643/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

¶58

In the result, the following order is passed:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

i. Appeal is allowed in part.

¶61

7 -

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

NC: 2026:KHC:36307 MFA No. 8309 of 2016

¶64

CNR: KAHC010478842016

¶65

ii. The judgment and award dated 26.08.2016 passed in ECA No.43/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura, is modified.

¶66

iii. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company has already deposited the awarded amount before the Trial Court. Therefore, respondent No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit

¶67

the enhanced compensation of Rs.79,643/- along with the interest at the rate of 12% within one month from the date of this order.

¶68

iv. On such deposit, petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued on the same.

¶69

Sd/(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE

¶70

AMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri Krishna N Devadiga v. Sri Krishna S Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishna N Devadiga v. Sri Krishna S Nayak

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

The Divisional Controller Vs Pushpalatha

Gagan. R Vs Gunashree. R

Sathyanarayana Manohar Vs Suman S

Manjushetti @ Manju Vs the Manager

Mr Ashraf Vs Mr H v Purushotham

Marigowda Vs S Srinivas