IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR M.F.A. NO.84/2019(WC) BETWEEN:
1. MANGALAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS.
2. PREMA D/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS AS PER TC HER DATE OF BIRTH IS 20.01.2000 AND SHE HAS ATTAINED MAJORITY.
3. GOWRASHREE D/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS.
4. KENCHARAJA S/O LATE SIDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
5. DODDALINGAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAIHA AGED AOBUT 65 YEARS.
6. LAKKAMMA W/O DODDALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS APPELLANTS 3 AND 4 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1ST APPELLANT, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MELUSAKKAREPALYA, GOWRIPUTA POST, CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TALUK – 572 215.
(BY SRI. K. SHANTHARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O SHIVANNA AGED MAJOR R/AT GOWRIPURA POST CHELUR HOBLI GUBBI TLAUK – 572 216.
2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BY ITS MANAGER 1ST FLOOR, TUMKUR SHOPPING COMPLEX, B.H. ROAD TUMKURU – 572 101.
... APPELLANTS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C. SHANKARA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; VIDE ORDER DATED:06.02.2019;
NOTICE TO R-1 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U/S 30 (1) OF EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED:14.09.2016, PASSED IN ECA. NO.9/2014, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., GUBBI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though matter is listed for orders by consent of learned counsel appearing for parties it is taken up for final disposal.
2. Claimants are wife, children and parents of deceased Siddaiah. Petition under Section 10 of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short ‘Act’), came to be filed by the appellants seeking compensation for death of Sri. Siddaiah, which occurred on 11.03.2011 on account of grievous injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident on said date while he was discharging his duties as driver of tractor and trailer bearing Registration No. KA-06-TA- 5039/5040 which vehicle was owned by first respondent. Contending said accident occurred during the course of discharging his duties, petition under Section 10 of the Act came to be filed seeking compensation.
3. Tribunal after notifying and taking into consideration the objections filed to the claim petitioner, had evaluated the evidence tendered by the parties had arrived at a conclusion that claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,94,120/- with interest 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. and by adopting relevant factor, as prescribed under schedule IV of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 namely, 197.06, has awarded compensation of Rs.3,94,120/-. Hence, this appeal.
4. It is the contention of Sri.K. Shantharaj, learned counsel appearing for appellants that tribunal had committed a serious error in considering the income of the deceased Siddaiah at Rs.4,000/- though under the amended provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act it ought to have been construed at Rs.8,000/-. He would contend that Central Government in exercise of power vested under Section 4(1)(b) of Act had specified the income of an employee to be at Rs.8,000/- in substitution to Rs.4,000/- w.e.f. 31.05.2010 and as such tribunal could not have computed the compensation by taking the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- p.m. Hence, he prays for modification of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
5. Per contra, Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 is unable to demonstrate or substantiate the award in question. Hence, he prays for suitable orders being passed.
6. In reply Sri.K. Shantaraj, learned Advocate appearing for appellants would submit that tribunal has also committed error in awarding interest from date of petition and prays for interest being awarded from the date of accident.
7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for parties and on perusal of judgment and award in question, this Court is of the considered view that following points would arise for consideration:
“(1) Whether tribunal was correct in awarding a sum of Rs.3,94,120/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition?
(2) Whether interest awarded from the date of petition, is just and proper?.”
There is no dispute with regard to the fact about accident in question, demise of Siddaiah due to said accidental injuries sustained, as well as issuance of policy to the offending vehicle and same being in force as on date of accident. As such these aspects are not delved upon as it would only be repetition of facts. In fact, these aspects have already been delved upon by the tribunal.
RE: POINTS (1) & (2):
8. Since these two points are inter linked, they are taken up together for adjudication. Central Government is empowered under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act to specify monthly wages in relation to an employee as it may consider necessary for the purposes of Sub- section (1) of Section 4 of Workmen’s Compensation. Tribunal while determining or computing compensation payable to the dependents of the deceased Siddaiah in the instant case has construed the income per month as Rs.4,000/- p.m. though by Notification No.S.O.1258(E) dated 31.05.2010, brought into effect from 31.05.2010, the maximum amount had been specified @ Rs.8,000/- p.m. for the purposes of Sub- section (1) of Section 4 of Act. In other words, authorities including the Court which adjudicate the claim for award of compensation under Section 4(1) of the Act will have to necessarily consider the monthly wages of the deceased as specified under the notification. When said notification was in force i.e., notification dated 31.05.2010 deceased had met with an accident i.e., on 11.03.2011 and had succumbed to the injuries sustained. As such tribunal could not have adopted the income of deceased at Rs.4,000/-p.m, and it ought to have adopted Rs.8,000/- p.m. Hence, this Court is of the considered view that tribunal has committed a serious error in construing the income at Rs.4,000/- p.m. Insofar as application of relevant factor is concerned, tribunal has rightly taken into consideration the age of the deceased at 35 years as reflected in the post mortem report-Ex.P.5 and adopted the relevant factor of 197.06. Accordingly compensation requires to be re-determined and it is so determined as follows:
Rs.8,000-50% = Rs.4,000 X 197.06 = Rs.7,88,240/-
9. Claimants would also be entitled to additional amount of Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses, which had not been awarded by the tribunal. Hence, I hereby award additional sum of Rs.5,000/- towards ‘Funeral expenses’.
10. Insofar as interest is concerned, Section 4A (3)(a) of the Act would clearly indicate that where an employer is in default in paying the compensation due under the Act within one month from the date it fell due, Commissioner would be required to direct the employer to pay in addition to the amount of compensation interest thereon @ 12% p.a. on the amount due. Thus, interest on compensation to which the claimant or the legal representatives /dependents would become entitled would be one month after the date of accident. In other words, after one month from the date of accident interest becomes payable on compensation. Whereas in the instant case, tribunal has awarded interest @12% p.a., from date of petition, which is not in consonance with Section provisions 4A (3)(a).
Hence, I proceed to pass the following ORDER (1) Appeal is allowed in part.
(2) Judgment and award passed in ECA No.9/2014 dated 14.09.2016 is hereby modified and in substitution to order passed by the trial court, an amount of Rs.7,93,240/- is hereby awarded and it shall carry interest @ 12% p.a., and it would be payable after one month from the date of accident till date of deposit or payment whichever is earlier.
(3) Second respondent –insurer shall deposit the amount before jurisdictional trial Court expeditiously and at any rate within an outer limit of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order excluding the amount, if already paid or deposited.
(4) No order as to costs.
SD/- JUDGE RU