Rekha vs Empire Transport Kkr Road … on 26 February, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY;;:"2GQQ--.f:    _

BEFORE

THE I~i0N'BLE MR.JUS'I'iCE }<; 1i§A1ia1Ai~i;s:;A "   «  3

MFA NO.1.2648/$096';
BETWEEN:   " .

IREKHA,
AGED 28 YRS,
W/CXPRAKASH RATHQII).

2.JEMALA,V@%--14E$§5'Lg';.;;;,_  ~  V
AC}ED71T{RS, '   _ 
S/'C).LAXMAN RA*:éHVrs'«*:1'#.'a1;;A;=>:;re,

pm: '$35 in -

'   {BY 5s12; 71a:AsAV$§g2:§J.RxMATH,Amv. FOR SR1 HARSH DKSAI, ADV»)

- 1;'EMP1P.E: TRANSPORT,
 K;ii.i2--..RGAD,
 --..{'FH;'-'RE-BELAPUR ROAQ},
2  TURBHE, VASHI, NAV1,
V ._ ~.,1sA'UMBA:, THANE 929:1'.
 -.  REFZBY ITS MANAGER.

QUNITED INBIA INSURANCE C0,LTD.,
S:S.F'RON'I' ROAD,
BIUAPUR -~ 586 101.

; g'
'2: ' _,---~



REP. BY THE DIWSIONAL MANAGER. .. 

(BY SR1 MANVENDRA REDDY, ADV. FOR R»-2)

fit}-kit}

THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.3{){1}}:  if

ORDER DATED 14/10/es passzm m w{:g;.zeQz.54/<§:';%oz~: r4*--1.:;E~.QF
THE LABOUR OFFICER AND * cQMM1ss3zO;~J.ER". §%:}'R-..WORKMEN
COMP}33NSA'I'¥ON, sUB--mvIs;oN~--1,"'}3.1§}APuR,'PAz§*I'L? AL§Low:NG THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR compgnsairzcrigwb}.sEEKtN'<3A EFIHANCEMEN'?
01+' COMPENSATION. '  -  .   

THIS APPEAL C()M£NG ':p1aj1iéd.D "»--.,:'i'f1§3¥¥§fo:13, LM/06 is allowed and the delay is

   V.  AT

.,  'A r  T'1.xough the matter is listed for admission, wfith thc

'es zeamed counsel for both parfics, it is taken up for final

 § 

, 94
",5 ..-/
"R ,,-..-7'

, S



3. The appellants have come up with this 

the inadequacy of compenmtion awarded by 

Workmen's Compensation, Su?:3¥AiV)iiéi:2ioi3L ~:'l.,V "   

wcA/sR/54/ 2005 dated 14--1o»2oo$..__  n

4. The appellants who  wife   deceesed
Prakash Rathod filed   ifefgxe  W4.C.Comisioner
seeking compensafion   that the

deceased was worlséing uhder   1 as a driver of tanker

bearm' gi died on 18--6~20OS damn" g
the eoniize 'of  while driving the said vehicle from

Hyderabad   Pane Sollapur NH No.9, which met

 - /. aecigient uxié'itb_....-@2_:1other vehicxe bearing No.KA 03 C. 5959. A

case -ix;  169/2%'! came to be reg'stereé in this mgarri.

Aecc.>i1V1inig'VAé1;;§peHants, the deceased was getting salary of

'VVRs.4_,aiZ{}O'fV--  month and R3100/» batta per day and that he was

x V' "éfli)0£lt 30 years as on the date of his accidexatal death.

5. The Commissioner, considering the material evidence

 placed before it, alicwed the claim petition in part aivaniing

compensation of Rs.3,11,978/~ with interest at 12% pa. 30 days

'i'  M

,.



after the date of accident till the date of passing of  Hence

this appeal seelcing enhancement of eompensatio;:§"oi:

that the income of the appellant as taken 

only at Rs.3,0{)0/-- to assess the  '   

appellant is on the lower side vawgel hefieeeit is  "fcrvfg 
mg appeal. .. ._ V   . _

6. Heard the arguieeilts  fee both parties
and perused the records.    AA 9»

 Admi£fe:1l3z;'de'ce;§§sed- Fiakash Rathod died during the

course of his 'empIeyfi2ent' 'uedVer respomient N0. 1 in the accident

that teevk piace €311_ 1V§ 3--5~ f3OQ5. The employment of deceased with

  I\i¢:3;._1 is not cfisputed. It is also not in dispute that

:':-Egeonly legal heirs of the deceased. Further, the

   issjaed:f1bjTy resyondent No.2 in favour ef respendent No. 1

 fiie risk of the driver was in force as on the date of

 T:.é1v:'::f production of any documentary evidence in preef of izzeeme of

the deceased had taken his inceme at Rs.3,0()G/-- per month to



assess the quantum of compensation which is  V/5A,ide.

Considesting the iiact that the deceased was a of 

that the accident took p}ace: damn' g .;fi1£ie"2!}0'§'5, i;  D01'  AV 

that appellant must have eanxed ~  A

considering his age at 30 years._j£«is. on" the c}.a_i:: 'V'é1€:e'itient', by
applying the proper i'a¢At-;3_1' 2O3"V:is entitled to
compensation of Rs.4,15,'§€§Q]--  x 50% x 297.98].

8. Hence» the  The judgment and

awaxti passed.   "Cen1jinissi£§fier'V4Workmen's Compensation is
hereby   is entitled to enhanced

c0mpe:1sati{V')3:c.efv-- with interest at 12°/6 p.a. from 30

 - .1c1ays;'jjs:ftg:iAVt:a¢ da£e"uf..g12sssi11g of the award i.e., :14/1 1/2005 till the

   Respondent No. 2 31:31} iieposit the enhanced

a*s¥’a1tiVeam61§§f;*t, six weeks from today. A::iv’ocate’s fee is fixed

[Vat Rs;1,5″‘()O/ ~fi. R’cspond.ent N02 shall bear the cost at” litigafion

‘V V’ ihfiiughofit.

Sfl/-7
§UDGE

‘tsp