MFA M19233 /' 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED 'I'H§S THE 30TH DAY 02:' JANUAR*¥'_:~--i§Z)(}AS}: V' T'
BEFOREflW H" A } 'x
THE HON'BLE M1§,.J_1}STiC.EA}:'i3:S.PA'§7ifi: " * "
BETWEEN:
Mfs. Punj Lloyd Ltd., . V i
Rep. by its Admin:1strativ£.'*€.'.fi:icer; A
Sri Baiju % '
Aged: 3Gyea1js;_ . u
Chikkalgudcé, » » '_
Piukkeri (T), Belgagm (:*=)is..1:IA'i:.':V:;).& ig. ..APPELLAN'I'
(By 35:; Madaii"vIvi§;-1i§faz;' 41%1;K1'--anhur, Adv.)
AND:
V. 1. Basappd'La g§11ap:pa Ramankatti,
§?§c"si¢1'i11g'v~at Lakséiminagar,
:A w .151 Cnma, Kakathi,
V Disujict.
if I;§Ci'§;é;_.§§Ssmance ()0. Ltd.,
Féfip. .-by its flivisional Manager,
Club Road, Bclgaum. ..R'ESPC}NDEN'I'S
4]" (;By'~,Sri Sanjay S.Katagcri, Adv. for R»:
8--:'i=L.B.Mannoddar, Adv. for R-2)
This Appeal is filed under Section 36(1) of WC Act
the order ciatezi 30.96.2006 passed in
WCA/"SR. 153/ 12004 on the file of the Labour Oificar and
Commissioner far Work:men's Compcnsafion, Sub~Division--2,
Belgaum, awaniing compensafion of Rs.1,44,839/ -- with
interest @ 12°/o pa. from 16.03.2904 to 30.06.2006 and
directing the appellant herein to deyosit the same.
MFA 910.9233! 2006
This Appeal is coming on for 8.{ii11iSSi(>I.'£, llthxe
Court maxi: the folloW1'ng:~
JUDGMENT
O}. This appeal is by the emplojgéc-tr
passed by the Commissionexfgfgr ” L’
Belgaum. By the impugned linlér, tt1é”~{3€§:Lzij1islt=§io11ttr has
awarded compensation. l Jllaiong with
interest at 1296. The Comm penalty
of 25% of the Qszzipflflsallon that the employer
failed 30 days. The
Commisilsiofi-srl hfisif that the 211*’ respondent ~
Insurance Cl1Ompa1;yv.wAa3ll flail liable to reimburse the amount as
< /'me ._filij1;1f§d<¢mpl6yes….was not covered under the policy in
ea:i$ie:nc®., V ' = l'
02 "*v"§'h'§:'<§£)ja£é.filions of the lcaxned counsel for the appellant
(4l1}..'t.llaVL'£.tl1e claimant was not employeé by the appcflant as
V' 'Wits 'tfznlplliytze at tha time of accident; (2) that the amount of
éénlpénsafion awarded taking the loss 01' earning capacity at
" '35%: is illegal and (3) that the Commissioner erred in not
V fastening the liability (in the 235 msgmndeni – Insurance
%,
'~
MFA Fife. 9233 I 2006
Company on the gmund that oniy Scmi~skflk:d anév
Engineers were covered as per the poiicy and
was engaged as a helper to the Welding ..M§:;1§s#,§:r:VA.T.§vas Tbntgtu'
covered.
03. Leazncd counsel appea1§j§g~..for tilt:
and the Insuraslce Company ” «£11; Ffgntentions
urged by the counsel {of
04. Having 1}56.a~f§.i’fhc i'(}1″:’l:hc parties and on
canzftfl .013. record, I do not fimi
any ‘A urged by the learned
counsel v 3″:::>1:” ..t}ie. As xightly pointed out by the
élomméissioixér as ~ a ietter addressed by $11 Akhi}
‘*–Mar 01’ the appcllaznt -~ Company (where
was working) to the Medical Director of
K; vgelgaum, a request was mach: tn the Hospital
‘.VAuth§§1~*§1;:ié:As; extend medica}. facilities to the injt1red~c1aimant
x V’ “..f2m1¢:iTtl1e Company will undertake to meet the mcclical
iucuned at the tizne of dischargg. This document
” éléarly shows that the alaimant sustained injuries during the
V course of his emgloyment and therefore the employer through
Ag,
MFA NQ9233 I 2006
its Genera} Manager undertook ts meet all the medical
expenses to be iI§1CIl1’I’€d for his treatment in K.L.E. Hosfiifa}.
O5. Insofar as the quantum of compensation aj;vVi\riVié{i,_ the
claimant has examined Dnsathish D.Pab’},
surgeon working in K.L.E. Hospital; ~who7 fhe
injured clam’ ant. He. has e§*id én£;e
claimant sufihmsi fracture of
medial maliiolus). In his ¢Vi(i€§I1f?£§,.”vh€’ that
the claimant was an inpéfigént till 28.02.2004
and hacgi’ ‘um1m}gon§ :i:’m+{£§spita;. It is also stated by
the llnabie to stand for long fimc
and was m ‘capab1¢’or atiengéimg :0 hard manual work. He has
that was unable to sit cmss–1cg and
tLh§irc.. wa$Vm:s1:’fict_i0n cf movement in his right ankle and them
‘;.knce, He has assc$sc€i the physical disability
‘V in gighthiéji-war limb at 25%, The Commissioncar has taken
u–,;<:n3f vibe nature of the hard work that the claimant was
.' as a helper anci the physical incapacity that was
' 'i1ifiictcd on him on account of the accident. anti has assessed
A. the loss of earning capacity at 35°./£2. Taking the monthiy wages
at Rs..3,598]~ and appiying the Ifilfzvaiit factor }.9'?.{)6 having
1%'
°e::1vé2*ee. =
MFA No.9233 / 2096
5
regard to the age of the claimant found to be 35 y”ears___at the
time ef accident, total compensation in a sum of Rs. —
was arrived at. 3 do not fine any iiiegaiity in
compensation made by the Comnxissioner “ae’.’:vto “L=;?ar:’ax;t
intexference under Section 30 of
06. Ensefar as the 3″‘ contenfieeeyxfgeei for the
appellant is concerned eefifepcfixxg Qomxeiesioner was
not justified in reff;_1si11g gjg the Insurance
Company, it insumnce Poiicy
coxxtaine al fife]?_s§ee;1ge ‘e:q;Ie.ssion with reference to the
coverage. ‘ §_t i:=; that 01133; semis-skified anei
U11sk:i_l1eci_ salary less than Rs.4,0{)O]- are
the appellant-emp1oyer submits that the
V — actuei ceeefage is in respect ef Semi-skilieé and Unskilled
K Vempioflyeee and not Engineers. Re submits that there could not
be any Semi-skilled or Unskzilled engages. He amber
thai the expression ‘Semi-skilled and Unsliiiied
” Engineers’ is mentioned due to a typographical error in the
peiicy and the eame eeuld net have been reiied upon by the
–
MFA No.1-9233/12006
Commissioner to }:'(‘2fL1S€ to fasten the liability on the Insurance
Company. Counsel for the responée:t3t–In.surance
however submits that since it is a contractual ”
open for the empioyer to improve upon the ” .
the policy and the expzessions used.i’-._
08. On perusal of the fiz1di13.gs’v,r~:.ét;.:;rcle§d. byVthej.’Coi#itiiissionefV
in this zegani, I find thattiie hes fioteeipplied his
tame} to this aspect > the ithcts and
eimuznstances c_)f.:t’h3’s to ascextaixi
as to What and Whether
xeferencle 1 Hiinskilled Engineers is a
typogapfiiosi enoriii ti1ei:L:Commissioner has not applied his
mind ;i:;t..+,;1is éispeot,’1it iiriiliiibe unjust and iilegal to proceed on
.°1;hr,; ‘thé1t”whatei}eie might be the intention of the parties
or clerical error had occurred at the
ooiicy was issued, the parties should be bound
the exjiiessions mentioned in the policy. in my view, both
_s15:)e1iant~emp1oyer and the Insurance Company must have
opportunity to place relevant materials to estabiish their
.4 resjpective stand and the Commissioner has to examine this
aspect of the matter and thereafter record his findings.
l
MFA No.9S233 I 2006
0%). So far no the penaity imposed to an extent of 25%’*of the
compeneation amount stating that the employer -to
pay the amount within 30 days, though thererisv
framed, the finding recorded by the’ -C.om;*.o.i.$Veioi1efiV not’
supporteé by reievant materials.
serious consequence. The has only i
after recording specific finding to”i:heA intention on
the part of the employer féo} the amount within
time. In that vi¢:w__of of penalty
deserves to be’ __ In
10. iforegoitig, since I am uphoiding
the Commissioner with regard to the
_ Ieiationefiip of enzgoloyex ané employee between the appeiiant
a2.t:id–. the fact that the accident arose out of and
of empioyment and also regarding the
V . q1:a.1i:ii’tn33:x.V of eompensatsion awaitled by the Commissioner, the
M ii he entitleé to receive the entire ootopensafion
before this Court along with accrued interest. The
-mntter is rexoitted back to the Comnxisoioner only for the
purpose of determining the iiahiiity of the insurance Company
under the gzoiicy in the light of the ohservafions made herein
%,,,.
MFA E’-b.9233/’ 2006
above. In case the employer succeeds in showing .._the
policy covemd the injured-claimant, it will be ¢x:;fifled..’_~ _
reimbursement fmzn the insurance Co_n1f,afiy.V “aéld u
Conanlissioner wiii be entitled to f2ass:.n¢Ce4s$é.1:y’*~0rdexfjs vzanii
issue necessary directitm this régard to V’ Ii1s1ig:*£:i:m:e” ,
Company.
I 1. With the above is disposed of
Sci]-
Judge
PKS