IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 29?" DAY OF ."lANUARY 201d 2
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.R. :l<U'M'ARASwAMf%'. E:
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL N§E.'4Q:3~S}R20o9g.._(L\1§:_1 T
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Gowramma,
Aged about 40 years,
W/0 late Venkatesh, H
2. Kum.Jayalakshrsii,Ag.-'
Aged about 17Evea,rsm;l " ' .
D/0 late Venkatesfih,
3. Chi. VenkatarajAtAi'.'OA'«".V««.._rK _
Aged about 12 yVears,C=.V '
S/0 late Venlzateshg. '
'The Appe"lla.nts N'c..2"and 3 are
'l'~1.i_norv.=§,"regpzfesented' lzry--lzlleir
{Mother arrdgnatural guardian
Srnt'. Gowra_m.,ma_; the 1" appellant.
All areké.-sidlr§'g_g:;Et'
N.S. Bhat, Advocate)
C/o. l3".~R. Marfiimath, Hosabeedi,
Bldadi MaVin'..Road,
_ 'B,idac3i__Hob'li and Post,
" Ramanagaram Taluk.
A Appellants
if'
AND:
1.. Sir. Narayana Poojari,
Major, S/o Sri. Jarappa,
Residing at Koppala House,
Arakuia Viiiage, Parangipet,
Bantwal Taluk - 574211,
Dakshina Kannada District. : l
2. The Regionai Manager,
National Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Regionai Office, M.G. Road,
Bangalore--560 001,
Represented by its Manager'~...«_ it Respondents
(By Sri. Ravish Benni, Advoca'tegfor':lRV1
R2 -~ Served)_:" 1 .,
This Miscellaneo1i'5.__First Appe1al....is-fiiéd'under Section 30(1) of
Workmen's _ Judgment dated
31.01.2009 passediniwclifs§ia§_[i%ic/i'cR--41/2007 on the file of the
Labour Offigcerggand'Cornnfiiss'i-onler for Workmen's Compensation,
Be..n_gaiorerpvartly allowing the claim petition for
compensatilondanvd sie.e.l<ing for enhancement of compensation.
Miscellaneous First Appeal coming up for admission this
delivered the following.
:5,
ii';/'
JUDGMENT
This Miscellaneous First Appeai is fiied under
of the Workmen’s Compensation Act against Ju_d_g’ment.A_1fdated*-.1
31.01.2009 passed in WCA/B~4/FC/CR–4it/i€i:Q’7;o’n__the .r’ire
Labour Officer and Commissioner for_4Work-men’s Co.r§ip.ensati.o’n,
Sub Division~4, Bangalore, partly ailowiilng’theV”ci_a’i’rn7petition for
compensation and seeking for_enhance_ment.of-compeinsation.
2. Parties will be re-fe.rred3rw’iti§IgefeirenVce’-tethe status in the
Court of Commiss.ione.r To-r’;’-lNori<.nfien's" Compensation.
3. Though tVh’is*,j’maVtter .Tits”-Civistedywfor admission, with the
consent of the __Iea_rn’ed_.’counsel”for the appeilants as well as
learned cgunsel lforfithel’ respondents, this matter is heard on
myer.it’s._ V”The*n1ater_ia|s bllaced before this Court are sufficient to
disposewwof this stage.
4′. Theélcasieloféthe claimants in the Court of Commissioner for
c_’Wor’i(menC’a..«Compensation are as under:
claimants are the wife and minor children of the
Vlif-~.d,eceavsed Venkatesh. The deceased Venkatesh was working as
/,
if
a driver in the iorry bearing Registration No.KA–19~H-527, whgich
belongs to Respondent No.1. He was receiving a_..S_éia’ryf’~.of~V.
Rs.4,500/– per month and bata of Rs.100/- per
19.5.2004 at about 1.00 p.rn. when the cie¢ieaseave..nretestwag.
driving the lorry with a ‘load _.of eéucgaiyptus.:_trees’~
Kenchanakuppe towards Neiiigudde.HiV:n”*.front’of”Chandramiand,
the lorry proceeded on the tuurtgied and fell into a
ditch. The said Venkatesh sustained”grievous;_~i.nj’_uries and died
on the way to the ho’s’p’i«tai’.
5. In thevy.Cou_Ifti..t:j’el5oI’~£i{ on the Respondent
No.1 ~— owner of he has entered appearance
through counsei}«…_Vh% But’h_e’thas:_’not filed written statement in the
C.0’L.’.rt be|V_0′{iir.
Vresiiondent — Insurance Company has filed the
it=r’o’bjection’s__ stavtemjent in the Court beiow denying the averments
C it ” itnithex claim petition.
sum and substance of the findings of the learned
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is as under:
{ix
The learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation
assessed the wages of the deceased at Rs.3,500/– per-V’.
and adopting the relevant factor of 169.44 since
deceased was 45 years, has awardeidla ._comp«e.ns’a_tion~7=of”:
Rs.2,96,520/– (Rs.1,75O x 169.44) with’v__interest>.g’;:t”12~%».4″pe’r”~.
annum from one month from the dat’e..of.acciden_t.’~~.. A
8. Feeling aggrieved bvlthlefiiegal heirs of the
deceased Venkatesh have prefe’rre:(:i
9. Learned submits that the
deceased the year 2004.
Therefore thexlimgcome’ learned Commissioner for
workmen’;Comp”en.Sati.o’n atV«§is.3,5O0/- per month is on the
lower-sgid”e anidit “needs eiéhancement.
1(l.*gw«LelarVneVdIj.counsel for the respondents supports the
_V°jrnpugned””3ud’gVment and Order of the Court below.
perused the impugned order. The main grievance
vthe_.5learned counsel for the appeilants is that eventhough
lll”–«u.AVdeceased Venkatesh wasa driver during the year 2004, the
J’ –
xix’
learned Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation__.__has
assessed the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/– per~4jru1.o_htre,’4
which is on the iower side. Normaily this Court takes ‘
of the driver at Rs.-4,000/– per month. V.~~Ev.en C”
Wages Act, the minimum wages that
Government is Rs.2,690/– as on 2O>Od_:’.’2.faking.irrto:c.on’sid’era’tion ” it
that the deceased was a driver of’V.ih’ea’vy”g-.o_ods Avehiciei, in my
view, the wages of the deceaisedicany at Rs.4,000/-
per month instead the deceased at
the time of his d’eat’i}..Vw-.a’s_V__45._j,(_ears”-“arjid therefore the relevant
factor applicaiagiiiheiy is ciaimants are entitied
for a compens’atio*n% ‘of E§s’.A3′,r3’8;i3_A8o,i*~– (Rs.2,000 x 159.44).
12. View of ‘thfidieciisioh of the Hon’bie Supreme Court in
the¢asre.¢rhor::ax;m 1NsuRANcE COMPANY .vs. MOHD. NASIR *
ANDixr.:vcsTuEte;’r«répij%rted in 2009 AIR scw 3717, the ciaimants
entitied for interest at 7 11/2 % from the date of fiiing the
i3eti.tioh~tiii the date of award and thereafter at 12% per
the date of award titi the date of deposit.
§ /’/
R»
13. In View of the above discussion, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. This Miscellaneous First Appeal is allowed in part.
2. The compensation amount of Rs.2,9_6,52Q/-
the Commissioner for Wori<men's Confipensation is Ventra'nged~«
to Rs.3,38,880/–.
3. The appellants/claimants are entit.le”d» for”interes_”t ”’i/§ % it
from the date of filing the claim ;ge.ti.Vti”on”‘t_iLll the ‘da_teVA,of award
and thereafter at 12% peVr”«ai”:nur’n f::;fovvr.Ti’*r-t’he”‘date of the award
till the date of deposit.
4. Rest of the Judgment and :Court below is
affirmed
as/~»
(3 ss/-
