IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.NO.3131 OF 2016 (WC) BETWEEN:
Sri. Chinnaswamy, S/o. Thirthan, Aged about 29 years, Labourer, C/o. Selvaraj, Veerendra Hegde Road, Chikmagalur Town – 577 101. ... Appellant (By Sri. Venkate Gowda.K, Advocate) AND:
1. Manager, Chikkalla Estate, Hwesgal Village, Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagalur District – 577 101.
2. Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Chikmagalur – 577 101. ... Respondents (By Sri. K.M. Anirudh, Advocate for Sri. A. Ravishankar, Advocate for R1 Sri. K.S. Lakshminarasappa for Sri. B.C.Seetharama Rao, Advocate for R2) This MFA is filed under Section 30(1) of W.C.Act against the Judgment and Award dated 16.01.2015 passed in ECA.No.52/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, JMFC, Chikmagalur, allowing the claim petition for compensation and further seeking enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
JUDGMENT The claimant-appellant is in appeal under Section 30 (1) (a) of Employees Compensation Act, 1923. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 12 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in an accident occurred on 27.02.2007.
2. On 27.02.2007, due to the accident, the claimant suffered fracture on his right thigh bone and he was treated at M.G.M. Hospital, Mudigere, wherein he took treatment as an outpatient. Thereafter, he was shifted to Venlock Hospital, Mangaluru, wherein, he was treated as an inpatient till 21.04.2007. It is stated that the claimant was aged 21 years and he was getting a salary of Rs.4,000/- per month.
3. Respondent No.1 appeared before the Labour Commissioner and admitted the accident but denied the wage of the claimant-petitioner. It was contended that the claimant was getting Rs.100/- per day as wages. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company also filed its objection before the Commissioner. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and one more witness as PW-2 and got marked three documents as Ex.P-1 to P-3 and respondent No.1 examined its Manager as RW-1.
4. Learned Commissioner on consideration of the entire material on record both oral and documentary, has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,40,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. While determining the compensation, the learned Commissioner has taken Rs.2,600/- per month as income of the claimant. The claimant 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 appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Commissioner committed an error in taking only Rs.2,600/- per month as income of the claimant, whereas the claimant was earning more than Rs.4,000/- per month. He further submits that the Commissioner ought to have taken Rs.4,000/- per month as income. Thus, he prays for allowing the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1- Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Commissioner is just and proper and needs no interference by this Court with the judgment and award.
8. The claimant-appellant was working as labourer with respondent No.1. On 27.02.2007, he suffered accidental injuries i.e., fracture on his right thigh bone. He was initially treated at M.G.M. Hospital, Mudigere and thereafter he was shifted to Venlock Hospital, Mangalore, wherein he was treated as an inpatient till 21.04.2007. The claimant states that he was getting Rs.4,000/- per month as salary but respondent No.1 who admits the claimant as employer, in his statement has stated that the claimant was paid Rs.100/- per day, which comes to Rs.3,000/- per month. The Commissioner ought to have taken Rs.3,000/- per month as income of the claimant.
9. The Commissioner committed an error by taking only Rs.2,600/- per month as income of the claimant. There is no document indicating exact income of the claimant, that he was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. But in the statement filed by respondent No.1, it has been categorically stated that the claimant was paid Rs.100/- per day i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month. The same should be taken for determination for compensation. Hence, claimant would be entitled for compensation as follows:
3,000x60/100 = 1800 1,800x40% (Disability) = 720x222.77 (RF) = 1,60,394/-
1,60,394-1,40,000=20,394 10. Thus the claimant would be entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,60,394/- as against Rs.1,40,000/- with interest awarded by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/- JUDGE SMJ