IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.2428 OF 2013 (WC) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MEENAKSHAMMA W/O. THIPPESWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. VEDAVATTI NAGARA, HIRIYUR (TQ), CHITRADURGA-577501.
2. SRI. THIPPESWAMY S/O. VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O. VEDAVATTI NAGARA, HIRIYUR (TQ), CHITRADURGA-577501.
(BY SRI. B.M. SIDDAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI. UDAY KUMAR S/O. JOYTHI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OWNER OF MARUTHI OMNI CAR BEARING NO.KA-16/M-3577 R/O. TAMATKALLU ROAD, OPPOSITE TO INCOME TAX OFFICE MEDEHALLI, CHITRADURGA, ... APPELLANTS CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, LAXMI BAZAAR, CHITRADURGA-577501.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.N. SRINIVASA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1-SERVICE OF NOTICE D/W V/O DATED 17/01/2019) THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.11.2012 PASSED IN Ka.Aa.Chi/Ka.Na.Pa/F/CR-91/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT The claimants are in appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded under the judgment and award dated 22/11/2012 in Dispute No.Ka.Aa.Chi/Ka.Na.Pa/F/CR-91/2011 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga.
2. The claimants, parents of deceased-T.Babu, filed claim petition under Section 22 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (for short the ‘Act’), claiming compensation for the death of T.Babu. The deceased- T.Babu was working as driver under respondent No.1 in Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-16/M-3577. On 07-10-2010, when the deceased was proceeding in Maruthi Omni car from Hiriyur to Belgaum on NH-4 at about 1:30 a.m., Mini Bus bearing No.KA-05/AC-2700 driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Maruthi Omni Car from hind side. Due to which, T.Babu died on the spot. It is stated that the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as salary and Rs.150/- per day as Batta. He was aged 20 years as on the date of accident. As T.Babu died during the course of his employment, the claimants filed claim petition under Section 22 of the Act, claiming compensation for his death.
3. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared before the Commissioner, but only respondent No.2-Insurer filed its statement of objections denying the claim petition averments. The insurer denied that the deceased was working as driver under respondent No.1 in Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-16/M-3577 and further contended that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the deceased and respondent No.1.
4. Based on the pleadings, the Commissioner framed the following points for its consideration:
1. ªÀÄÈvÀ n. ¨Á§Ä vÀAzÉ: w¥ÉàøÁé«Ä gÀªÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 2(1)(J£ï) ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ£ÁVzÀÝ£ÉAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2. ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ªÀiÁgÀÄw N«Ä¤ PÁgï ¸ÀASÉå:PÉJ-16/JA-
3577gÀ°è ZÁ®PÀ£ÁV PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:
07-10-2010gÀAzÀÄ GzÉÆåÃUÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹zÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ°è wêÀæªÁV UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj UÁAiÀÄUÀ¼À zɸɬÄAzÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
3. ªÀÄÈvÀ£ÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ gÀÆ.6,000-00 UÀ¼À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ.150-00UÀ¼À ¢£À¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄgÀtzÀ ªÉÃ¼É ªÀÄÈvÀ¤UÉ 20 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìVvÉÛAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
4. CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ£À CªÀ®A©vÀgÁVzÀÝgÉA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
5. G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É §rØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ?
6. F §UÉÎ DzÉñÀªÉãÀÄ?
5. The second claimant examined himself as PW-1 and marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-6. Respondent No.2- Insurer examined one witness as RW-1 and marked two documents.
6. The Commissioner based on the material placed before it, held that the death of T.Babu had taken place during the course of his employment under respondent No.1 and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,45,420/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the expiry of 30 days from the date of accident till its deposit. While awarding the compensation, the Commissioner assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month and took the age of the deceased as 21 years for applying factor. The claimants not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation and assessment of the income of the deceased, are before this Court in this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurer. Perused the lower court records.
8. On hearing the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the lower court records, the following substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case.
1) Whether the assessment of the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month is proper and correct?
2) Whether the age of the deceased taken as 21 years for applying factor for awarding compensation is proper and correct?
Answer to the above points is in negative for the following reasons.
9. The accident occurred on 07-10-2010 involving Maruthi Omni Car bearing No.KA-16/M-3577, Mini Bus bearing No.KA-05/AC-2700 and the accidental death of T.Babu-son of the claimants are not in dispute in this appeal. The claimants’ appeal is for enhancement of compensation. The employer and employee relationship between the deceased and respondent No.1 is also not in dispute in this appeal. The Commissioner has given definite finding that the death of T.Babu has taken place during and in the course of his employment under respondent No.1. The Commissioner while awarding compensation assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.4,000/- per month. The Government had issued notification dated 31-5-2010 fixing minimum wages of Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for compensation based on Rs.8,000/- per month as income of the deceased. Taking note of the same, I am of the view that the income of the deceased assessed at Rs.4,000/- per month is on the lower side. The income of the deceased is to be assessed at Rs.8,000/- per month for awarding compensation. Further the Commissioner while applying the factor for assessment of compensation has taken the age of the deceased as 21 years. The date of birth of the deceased as per Ex.P-7-SSLC Marks card was 20 years 9 months as on the date of death. As the deceased had not completed 21 years, the proper factor to be applied is 224.00 as per the schedule 4 of the Act. Accordingly, the claimants would be entitled for the enhanced modified compensation of Rs.8,96,000/- (8000- 50%=4000x224.00=896000) as against Rs.4,45,420/-
with interest as awarded by the Commissioner.
The judgment and award passed by the Commissioner is modified to the above extent. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ