High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Savitha vs Gurulingayya Swamy on 18 February, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Savitha vs Gurulingayya Swamy on 18 February, 2009
Author: K.Ramanna
IN THE HIGH (3003? OF §{ARNA'}'AI<IA_...._ '  : 

C§RCUI'I' BENCH AT GULBARGA 

DATED THIS '"¥'HE EST" DAY Q.?*'AFmRL%ARV§,f'}$3559 V   V

BEFORE  Z  ' '
THE H(}i'~E'BLEL 1a.sIre';3z;§s<1f;{:13:<  

M,§?'.A. N0. 102$'/210{:*Z}A(WC3"'...,. 

BETWEEN:

1.

4.

 pg:
T.aiv1[1_k  Diatrici : Bidar.

Smt. Savitha '_$v.?--,1'_<)   A.  " "
Age: 22 years',  I-i"{}1z:f:;<::i°1'0l:i'l;V. A V  u

Mudaiambikga i:'¥;,{o 

Mimar, U/<}jiAppé;1:m_t'~N.'¢. 1. _

Chaficirahama W ":3. Vfiaségqyag,
Age : 50..ye:sxx's,"'OC<:1:'Cx)€31ja.

Bfegssafia ["0 §}iiiay"f;a,
  jggars, €)':':a:--:---«C0c2Iie.

 R?.]¢dVT'u1:é1japur Village,
 Appallants

 '  [By $15,. 82.8. Sidhapurkar, Adm}

Giiimingayya fiwam}?
Sjc C§hm1nayya Steamy,

 Aged about 56 years, (:}€CI fitxsiness,

" R/0 Mafitzapur Villge,

Taluk S5 fiistrict ; Bidar.

The Biaach Manager,

The New inéiia Assurance Cempany ¥'..:&d,,

Bidax', gidar Eiistrict.  Rmpondents

{By Sris RV. f€a:iag01:<£a, Aév. fer R2}
.2?  .. 



E»)

This Miscellaneaus First Appeal is £13.66} undcr Séhction
30(1) of the Workmens' Compensation Act, praying ts-v~ *

This M.F'.A. coming on for §L(1IIl:iS'S;J::'§}II'"Li'_',, %;'1'l i'§5s"-  A'

Court delivered the following :
J U 1") G"z~«:I;'__1'::.;_':§~I_____':A"'
Though the mattejxf is "'fOf"--».,fX€iB§i§ Si»fifi..v¥;7ith the

consent of the laarned C($u1ise1"fQIf;--,h.atfx  the mattsr i,$

taken up for final hfiaxing"33;1,d.@Ei;spgis_¢{E..é;f"this order.

2.  '£39    the LES of the dmeased

Qriver --- G1;{1:21}ix1gajfyfa'tsiiicyfiiiifizci in 3 mater vehicle accident

  31%, conga;-V ()fj§3'.3.p10}'.11}fiIf1§; and out of cmplaymcnt.

 "have challengezd the {3()2'.T€CtI1!i':$S am} legaiity

 award passed by tbs Commissioner for

 .Wer1§iinen$' véompensa$ion, Bidar in Ho, LCBfWCA/

 §E.:<:f;(,"§R;"'.};5/vV:2:9:G5 iiatzed 1.S,0S.'2GO'7. Awarding ta appeiiantg

  Euécme 0f the {iectzaseci as {aka} by the Wmrkmfins'

 "€3r;:zmpe:3;$atian Commissions: is incermct arzé iliegal and 'mat

" the C.9m.missi0n€:* for Werkmena' Compensatsioxa has not

taken into e<:I;1si<ie:'a,ti{J11 af zxpianaijon (2) of Sétctigm 4{ 1) <31'

{E

M#_#-«-'



thc Workxnens' Compensation Act, 1923. H;3:V1§:2:-;4;"._3:11is

appeal.

3. Hitard the learned Counsel-:f0'r--thc  W63} 9

as the respondents and perused    

arise for coasiderafion, is :

“Whether the véompexisafion. awaxticd by the
Commissioner for Woricsr.:ens?LG{)1npez:9atioz1 by taking
the incomc of the derceasefi atfRs;’2,69’i~..f69 is incorrect
and illegal” ‘9 . if – W ”

4, The working under the

:espo,fidei:if’ 1W Swamy. After service of
notice x<':~z1V Gunxlingayya Swamy, the owner

9f {:12 ve1i«4i§::}'r:f_:V:'t:niai1Aie3(.i r;1bsent and he was placad exparte

V' ._ beffifé i_tht:~ *V%';f0m1iiiS'SiOi1er for Workmens' Compcznsation, but

aione has contested the 93mm' petition

«by I to 4. The contention (Bf the Iearned

f_f($I' the respondent No.2 is that since the owner of

A ff" "vehiclc failed to apmar and Cflfltéfii the mafia: and the

fggppseiiants haw: not pmdnceé any salary csrfificate issued by

u fhfi resmysttient No.1 to Show that a sum sf Rs.4,€)O{}/~ paid

'is the éficeased by the Itspomient N0. 1 by way of salary and

3 sum of Rs.75,{.}{}0/ — axpenses incurrcé tawards the funerai

of the deceased. So, in the absence of any

evidtmce the Commissicmer for Workmens' "

right in taking the minimum incomaéof at u

Rs.2,691.60. The learned Counsél fci$f ti1e

ssubmitted that the 13:1su1*a11ce £;f véhic_lcw.i$ éisputfi. " L'

Hewevcr, it is for the __appell.a11tu;$~..t(:s'x.protii1t:::.._f£:I1(°;:§ proof of
monthly income of the it is submitted
that the amauxat atvaatiefii' t}§.é_ Ckjfiflmissioner for

W0rkn1ens' 17*] – is in accordance
with enhancement.

5, On V{)i.v'{V’j.?_,¥”V the learned Counsel for the

appegiléiiais sufifififiéé fliat rmpondent No.2 has not demied

:he:_VvL”re1_.§I’§Qa;$}kip of the deccasccl with Respondent No.1.

i}ie”V”&£:ci§£3ei1t in question is after the amendment Act

which came: into foxes: w.c.f. 08.12.2000.

:fK;”}1€fI:”8fOff,.. as per Sectirm 4(1) Explanatiofi 2 of Worktmens’

_ ‘éfgzémfinsafion Act, even if the income of the empbyees

% .,;e3{c€eds more than Rs.4,0€X}/-, Rs.4,0%/~ is to be taken for

V’ the puxpcrse of quanfifying the compensation. It is further

argued “that since the respondent No.1 faiis to issue salary

cfirtificatq Eliza evidemire sf agpellants recorded by the

../I ”” V_

Commissioner for Worktxmns’ Campcnsation ,.ha_s. t0j

accepted. Theiefom, it is prayed that the i;’;¥>._

allowed.

é. I have carczfully examinsgcl 11:atcri;éiiA{.p3a9&<i £)1r.

record. Admittedly, respc;nd<=%t" of the
vehirsle who has respondent No.2
and the Insurance Pqlicjkf The deceased
Gunzfingayya%__i:¢'e*i§§VL who met with an
accident t'1:1e evidence placed on
record, was subsequent to
the the Driver of the vehicle ..

Gunflfixgayjfa 1g§>’asV of Rs.4,500/- with batta of

day; “‘Ti1 eref0re, the Commissioner who has

income of the deceased at Rs’2,591.6O

is f..dially.i:1L-¢ni1¥::ct and on Iswar side. Even. in this pan: the

ozflifimf is getfizig more than Rs.6£)/ — to Rs.80/ -» eoolic

V’ :ff;a§lc:z54héay. Thexefom, the evidence placed an mean! by the

‘ that the: deceased was gctting income of more

Rs.4,£)t)O/~ per month is to be accepted. Sines

explanatisn 2 of Sub~Section{1) of Secfion 4 of the Act

restxicts the inoomc of the employm to Rs.4,00CI/~–.

ms

Therefore, the Commissioner for Workmcns’ .

has erroneously come to the conclgsion in” at” ‘V

Rs.2,691.60, which is to be increagzgd. 4%-Thexéfgie; ‘the

of the deceased is to be takeri at. Rs.:4,.{)i30/V – >

income is to be taken to assess Cjtonipcnsafion
by applying the of deccascci
and multiplier as takeg Compensation
commjssionmf ‘ :7 & 33.; ‘V v……:V:’A1’he11:fox’e, as per
Qa1Cu}afiOfl€.{:2Gfi}:Q.’_; would come to

Rs.4,35,94Oi-?§ _V

?. Thérgfdré, ” fiiigxfipensation awarded by the

Com§tais:;.ionerV” ~ for V Worlmens’ Compensation at

enhanced to Rs.4,36,940]~. Apart fmm

are also entitled for interest @ i2% pna.

30′”i1ay:2 fi “cfi the date of adjudiacativn of the award i.e. from

3F5,.%§6.2a{3*?.

Accordingly, the appeal is parfiy allowed The

…_j1}dgment and award passed by the Commissioner for

Wcyrkrmcns’ Compensation is hereby modified. The
appeiiants are entitled to Rs.4,36,940f- together with

interest at 12°/E: p.a. fimm 15.Q6.fi(}07,.

/V:

‘=;,f’-.2.-t»–~

Respondent No.2 shall deposit V.

amount within six weeks from j;

deposited would stand adjustedéf A ” . V A ‘ .

Rbv/*