IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.8443/2013 (WC) BETWEEN:
RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, MUMBAI.
HEREIN REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL OFFICE, NO.28, 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING, CENTENARY BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
BY ITS MANAGER (LEGAL).
…APPELLANT (BY SRI LINGARAJ H.S., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. RENUKA, NOW AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, W/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, 2. AADARSHA, MINOR, (AGE NOT MENTIONED IN THE CLAIM PETITION), S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, 3. AADITHYA, MINOR, (AGE NOT MENTIONED IN THE CLAIM PETITION), S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER/NATURAL GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN.
4. SHARANAMMA, NOW AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O HANUMANTHAPPA, 5. HANUMANTHAPPA, NOW AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE LAKSHMAPPA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT BACKSIDE OF D.C.M., SRIRAMA BADAVANE, NITTUVALLI, DAVANAGERE – 577 001.
6. M.BHEEMAPPA, MAJOR, S/O MADILAPPA, R/AT K.T.J.NAGAR, DAVANAGERE – 577 001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.HANUMANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; [R2 AND R3 IS MINOR REPRESENTED BY R1]; NOTICE TO R6 DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018;
R1 TO R3 ARE TREATED AS LR’s OF DECEASED – R4 AND R5 VIDE ORDER DATED 05.03.2019) THIS M.F.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.05.2013 PASSED IN WC/CR:163/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.6,17,850/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A. WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant – Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 24.05.2013 of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Davanagere District, Davangere passed in WC:CR:163/2010 granting compensation of Rs.6,17,850/- with interest at 12% p.a. payable after 30 days from the date of accident. Further, the Commissioner granted a sum of Rs.1,33,447/- towards the medical expenses of the deceased. The total compensation awarded by the Commissioner is Rs.7,51,297/-. The liability fixed on the Insurance Company as well as the quantum of compensation awarded is challenged in this appeal.
3. The factual matrix of the case is as under:
It is stated in the claim petition that on 01.05.2010 at about 4.30 p.m. near B.G.Halli, Mulabagalu, Kolar District, the deceased was driving Tata Indica Car No.KA-17-A-8168, at that time, the driver of the KSRTC Bus No.KA-07-F-1260, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the tata indica car, which resulted in the accident and grievous injury to the deceased -Hanumanthappa who died on the way to hospital. Due to the death of the deceased, the claimants namely his wife, children and parents of the deceased, preferred a claim petition before the Commissioner seeking suitable compensation.
4. After service of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle as well as the insurer did appear and filed their written statement and contested the claim petition. During the enquiry before the Commissioner, the claimants have established the occurrence of the accident, actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and its insurance coverage with the appellant herein.
5. On evaluating the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record, Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs.6,17,850/- with interest at 12% p.a. payable after 30 days from the date of accident. Further, the Commissioner granted a sum of Rs.1,33,447/- towards the medical expenses of the deceased. The total compensation awarded by the Commissioner is Rs.7,51,297/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant – Insurance Company is before this Court challenging the impugned judgment and award.
6. In this appeal learned counsel for the appellant has taken me through the evidence of PW-1, Renuka, said to be the wife of deceased. The Commissioner has held that the income of the deceased in a sum of Rs.6,000/- p.m. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that the said income is found to be on the higher side. He has further contended that the Commissioner exceeded in his jurisdiction in computing the monthly wages of the deceased. Therefore he contended that on these grounds, the income of the deceased is required to be reduced.
7. Learned counsel for appellant further contends that the Commissioner erred in granting compensation towards the medical expenses without there being any proof and the same is contrary to the facts of the case and evidence on record. Therefore, this aspect is also required to be intervened and compensation awarded towards medical expenses has to be reduced. On these grounds learned counsel for appellant/Insurance Company seeks for intervention of the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Commissioner.
8. Per contra, Sri. A.Hanumanthappa, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5, contends that PW-1 being a widow, is under the obligation of looking after her children and the parents of the deceased. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, there has been no source of income to eke out their livelihood. The Commissioner has considered the evidence of PW-1 and the documents produced at Exs.P1 to P12 and has awarded a just compensation of Rs.7,51,297/- with interest at 12% p.a. Therefore he seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
9. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are said to be the parents of the deceased have died during the pendency of this appeal.
10. In the context of the contentions taken by Sri.Lingaraj, learned counsel for appellant, it is relevant to state that there is no dispute about the death of the deceased in the alleged accident. Ex.P1 is the copy of the FIR, Ex.P2 is the complaint, Ex.P3 is the spot mahazar and Ex.R1 is the salary certificate issued by the employer of the deceased. These are the documentary evidence placed on record by the claimants in order to establish their case seeking suitable compensation. But there is no specific evidence adduced by RW-2 that the deceased was drawing a salary of Rs.6,000/-
p.m. Hence the income of the deceased taken by the Commissioner is on the higher side and hence the same has to be intervened in this appeal. The accident occurred in the year 2010. Keeping in mind the guidelines relating to the notional income of the deceased, I am of the view that the income of the deceased is required to be assessed at Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.6,000/- p.m and the personal living expenses to be deducted from the monthly income is 50% and the relevant factor is 205.95. Hence, the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency’ needs to be worked out at Rs.2,000/- x 205.95 = Rs.4,11,900/-.
11. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that under the head ‘medical expenses’, the Commissioner has granted compensation of Rs.1,33,447/- without there being any acceptable proof of the documents and evidence on record, but the same does not call for any interference by this Court. Hence, the total compensation comes to Rs.5,45,347/-.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R The appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned judgment and award dated 24.05.2013 passed by the Commissioner in WC:CR:163/2010, the compensation payable to the claimants is reduced from Rs.7,51,297/- to Rs.5,45,347/-. The reduction in compensation would come to Rs.2,05,950/- with interest at 12% per annum.
Appellant – Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation with interest before the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.
Out of the compensation awarded, the claimant No.1 is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,75,673/- with proportionate interest. The remaining amount of Rs.2,72,674/- is equally divided to respondent Nos.2 and 3 i.e., Rs.1,36,337/- each with proportionate interest. The said amount shall be invested in the Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized Bank, in the name of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 till they attain the age of majority.
The amount in deposit before this court shall be transmitted to the concerned Court / Tribunal forthwith.
Sd/- JUDGE VMB