IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT M.F.A.No.1784/2014 [WC] BETWEEN:
SRI T KRISHNAMURTHY @ KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/O DODDAPURA HOSURU CHITRADURGA TALUK-577501.
...APPELLANT (BY SRI.VIJAYA M.N., ADV.) AND:
1. SRI J C BASAVARAJAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA OWNER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILER BEARING NO KA-16/3228-29 R/O MAHADEVANA KATTE ANNEHAL POST CHITRADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT-577501.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, M H ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501.
(SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, ADV. FOR R1 SRI R JAIPRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS M.F.A. FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 03.07.2013 PASSED IN WCA./CR-159/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA, ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T The claimant is in the appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s compensation Act, (‘the Act’ for short) praying for enhancement of compensation, not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Chitradurga District, Chitradurga (for short ‘the Commissioner’) in case No.WCA/CR- 159/2004.
2. The claim petition was filed under Section 22 of the Act, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered in an accident during the course and out of employment. It is stated that the claimant was working as a coolie under respondent No.1 in a tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-16/3228-29. The claimant states that he was getting salary of Rs.3,000/- p.m., apart from Rs.50/- per day as bata. On 26.01.2004, as per the directions of the first respondent, the claimant was proceeding in the said offending tractor and trailer and the driver of the tractor and trailer drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries.
3. On issuance of notice, the first and second respondents appeared before the Commissioner, but only the second respondent/insurer filed its statement denying the claim petition averments. It is stated that the claimant has not suffered any injuries during the course and out of his employment. It is also stated that there is no relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and first respondent.
4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed for consideration:
“-: ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ :-
1) CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ n. PÀȵÀÚªÀÄÆwð C°AiÀiÁ¸ï PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 2(1)(J£ï) ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ£ÁVzÀÝ£ÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2) CfðzÁgÀgÁzÀ n. PÀȵÀÚªÀÄÆwð C°AiÀiÁ¸ï PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ mÁæ åPÀÖgï-mÉæîgï ¸ÀASÉå:PÉJ- 16/3228-29gÀ°è PÀÆ° PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ªÀð¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:26-01-2004 gÀAzÀÄ GzÉÆåÃUÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ GzÉÆåÃUÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹zÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è wêÀæªÁV UÁAiÀÄUÉÆAqÀÄ ±Á±ÀévÀ ¤§ð®vÉUÉ vÀÄvÁÛVgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
3) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ 1£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ gÀÆ.3,000-00 UÀ¼À ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ gÀÆ.50-00UÀ¼À ¢£À¨sÀvÉåAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝgÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ªÉÃ¼É CªÀjUÉ 22 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÁìVvÉÛAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
4) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢¬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ §rØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ?
5) F §UÉÎ DzÉñÀªÉãÀÄ?”
5. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P10, apart from examining doctor as PW2.
6. The Commissioner based on the material on record awarded total compensation of Rs.1,79,309/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. The claimant not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation and aggrieved by taking the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- p.m. and awarding 7.5% interest per annum is before this Court in this appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material on record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the claimant stated that he was receiving a sum of Rs.3,000/- as salary and Rs.50/- per day as bata which would come to Rs.4,500/- p.m. But, the Commissioner has assessed the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- p.m., for awarding compensation which is on the lower side. It is her submission that as on that day, minimum wages was Rs.4,000/- p.m., which ought to have been taken for awarding compensation. Further, she submits that the claimant would be entitled for interest at the rate of 12% p.a., on the compensation instead of 7.5%. Thus, prays for enhancing compensation by allowing the appeal.
9. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the material on record, the following substantial questions of law would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the Commissioner is justified in ignoring the minimum wage at Rs.4,000/- p.m., for the purpose of awarding compensation?
(ii) Whether the Commissioner committed an error in awarding only 7.5% interest per annum, as against the entitlement of 12% p.a.?
10. Answer to the above questions would be in the negative and affirmative respectively for the following reasons:
11. The appeal under Section 30(1) of the Act could be entertained only if it involves the substantial question of law in the above appeal. In the instant case, the above two substantial questions of law would arise for consideration. The claimant stated that he was receiving salary of Rs.4,500/- p.m., inclusive of Rs.50/-
per day as bata. The Commissioner has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- p.m. For awarding compensation, the minimum wage as per the notification issued was Rs.4,000/-. The Commissioner ought to have taken the minimum wage fixed for the purpose of awarding compensation. The Commissioner has held that the claimant was working under the first respondent as coolie in tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-16/T-3228-29. The employer and employee relationship is proved. As such, I am of the view that the Commissioner committed an error in taking Rs.3,000/- p.m., as wage of the claimant instead of Rs.4,000.- p.m. Thus, the claimant would be entitled for compensation taking Rs.4,000/- p.m. as wage. The claimant had sustained fracture of pelvic bone both bones of upper pubic. He was inpatient from 26.01.2004 to 23.02.2004 for treatment. Doctor examined on behalf of claimant stated that the claimant suffers from 55% whole body disability and 50% functional disability. Taking note of the nature of injury sustained, treatment taken and doctor’s evidence, the Commissioner assessed the functional disability of the claimant at 45%.
12. Further, the Commissioner committed an error in awarding only 7.5% interest p.a. on the compensation amount.
13. Section 4A (3)(a) of the Employees Compensation Act provides for 12% simple interest on the compensation from due date. Hence the claimant would be entitled for 12% interest per annum on the compensation amount from 30 days after the date of accident on the compensation amount. The tribunal has held that the claimant has suffered 45% disability. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled for the following modified compensation:
4000x60%x221.37x45% = 2,39,079/-
The claimant would be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,39,079/- as against Rs.1,79,309/- awarded by the Commissioner with interest at the rate of 12% p.a., from 30 days after the accident till it is deposited before the Commissioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE mpk/-* CT:bms