Posted On by &filed under High Court, Karnataka High Court.


Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs Sri Narayana Poojari on 29 January, 2010
Author: C.R.Kumaraswamy
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.

§ /’/

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/-


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

25 queries in 0.156 seconds.