IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.10653 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN 1. SMT. MALATHI W/O LATE SATHISH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 2. SUSHMITHA D/O LATE SATHISH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 3. NISHMITHA D/O LATE SATHISH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, 4. HEMANTHA.K S/O LATE SATHISH NAIK, AGED ABOUT 16 YEARS, 5. SESHAPPA NAIK, S/O AMMU NAIK, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, 6. RAJEEVI W/O SESHAPPA NAIK, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, CLAIMANT NO.4 IS MINOR, HENCE REPRESENTED BY THEIR NEXT FRIEND MOTHER CLAIMANT No.1 ALL ARE RESIDING AT SWAMI PRASAD NILAYA, BAJA HOUSE, ALLINGERI, KOKKADA VILLAGE, BELTHANGADY TALUK-574214.
(BY SRI. P KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE OF P. KARUNAKAR ASSOCIATES) AND 1. MR. SHREENATH ADULT, R/AT RAJASHREE TYRES, PLOT NO.142/M, NEAR BPCL LPG FILLING PLANT, BAIKAMPADY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PANAMBOOR, MANGALORE-575 011.
... APPELLANTS 2. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CRYSTAL ARCADE, IIND FLOOR, NEAR ROOPA HOTEL, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALORE-575001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANISH ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. B. PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C.ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.03.2012 PASSED IN WCA/CR/01/2009 L ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISION-1, MANGALORE, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND FURTHER SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimants are in appeal under Section 30 (1) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, assailing the judgment and award dated 22-3-2012 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, D.K., Mangalore.
2. The claimants are wife, children and parents of deceased Sathish Naik. The deceased was working as a lorry driver under first respondent-owner of the lorry bearing No.KA-19-AD-9779. On 06-10-2008, when the deceased was at work, he suffered accidental injuries and due to the said accidental injuries he died. As on the date of accident the deceased was aged 40 years and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Hence, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation before the Commissioner.
3. On issuance of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Commissioner and respondent No.2- insurance company admitted issuance of policy and by filing objections contended that there was no coverage of policy for second driver. The claimant No.1-wife of deceased examined herself as PW-1 and one more witness as PW-2-cleaner and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-13. Respondent No.2 got marked 4 documents as RW-1 to RW-4.
4. Learned Commissioner on consideration of the entire material on record, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,51,080/- with interest at 12% per annum, fastening the liability on respondent No.2-Insurance Company. The claimants being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner is before this Court in this appeal.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.
6. The only contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Commissioner has taken and assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month, which is on the lower side. He further submits that the deceased was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month but the Commissioner committed an error in taking only Rs.4,000/- as monthly income of the deceased. Hence, prays for enhancement of compensation.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company submits that the accident is of the year 2008, the income taken by the Commissioner is at Rs.4,000/- per month is in accordance with law and in the year 2010 the minimum wage was revised to Rs.8,000/- per month. Hence, the income of the deceased determined by the Commissioner is in accordance with law and prays for dismissal of the appeal.
8. On hearing learned counsels and on going through the appeal papers, I am of the view that no substantial question of law would arise for consideration. In this appeal, the claimants are wife, children and parents of deceased-Sathish Naik. It is stated that late Sathish Naik was working as a lorry driver in lorry bearing No.KA-19-AD-9779 under respondent No.1. It is the case of the claimants that the deceased was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month. But the claimants have not produced any document or material to indicate that deceased was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month as on the date of accident. The income of the deceased assessed and taken for determination by the Commissioner is just and proper and it is in accordance with law.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ