IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN_C§'A'LFOR'E.__V'I' _
DATED THIS THE 17"" DAY OF MARcF:~~2o'o9:."~t~:i: _:'
BEFORE
THE HOi\:'BLE MR.JuSTIt:t=.__<:.R.'KII'NIARA5i)vAi9i,f of; it
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST Aui5P.i§Ai._V NOi.7'3f66/2o08 (wc)
BETWEEN:
1. Smt. ShvamVin'a.l"
w/o iate Shabhir,
Age: 29.V_ye~ars.o "
2. Shabaz S/O slate 44'
Aged about i'1_ye~a.r:3.
late Sha bb'i'r;V
Aged_ about -8_'years.
4. iabiiez )u('/o'_"_£»ate;;'Stiabbir,
Aged' abou.t_6;, yea rs.
_..tIt'.j';-'5."-Neiu @' Saiamma
" «D/'oi late Shabbir,
g"'--Ag.edH"about 4 years.
Ajrnath S/0 Late Shabir,
"Aged about 3 years.
A Appeliants 2 to 6 are minors and
are represented by their mother
as natural guardian, the I" appellant.
1/
7. Jahinabi
W/o Mother Khan,
Aged about 61 years,
Door i\EO.1026, Arundathinagar,
Bangalore North taluk, : '
Bangalore Rural district.
All are resident of Door No.1002_6"',"-... . V . -
Arunciathinagar, Bangalore North_t'aluk, " --
Bangalore Rural district.__ ' .A_PP,ELLANTS
(By Sri V.B. Siddaramaiah,"Adv. it 0
AND:
1. The Oriental" zfgisurairgtte :C~ornpan.j}"Li'§9raited,
Branch '--Qffi_ce, V D';n;a.raka4«y'g,....N:-l -Road,
Chennai?600034._"WV
Represented"by"its_Branch'"Manager,
Brancgh office, V'iv.el<ananda Road,
101 _____
Rep, _by_its. Branch Manager.
_ 2. Sri
S/o ._Dasth.ag"i--r Khan,
V . Aged'"about"32 years,
RR/o 15"'Ma-in Road, 2"" Cross,
.ix\Eew..fiC§urappanna Palya,
'=Ba.nga_'.ore. RESPONDENTS
. —-t'(‘:¥§’–1’_£served; Notice to R-2 dispensed with)
This MFA is filed under Section 30(1) of the W.C. Act
against the Judgement dated 19.5.2007 passed in
KAT/KPK/CR/40/2007 on the fife of the Labour Officer and
3/
3
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Tuml_<_Jur,':'d4i'stiiict,
Tumkur partly allowing the claim petition for corr1'p'ensa'tiso'i:iandr4_
seeking enhancement of compensation," _
This MFA coming up for Admis.sio.fn~t'his=.d'a3r,
delivered the foilowing. ' " " 'C "
supefiewl ‘
This Miscellaneous Fi’rstAp’p,ea,l’ jis4″fiVi,¢itlC’u..nder Section 30(1)
of WorkmelvnisvCornpe’ni:sati;jn,V,:Act a.<jai'nvst the judgment dated 19-
5~2oo7 passedin Kgtfigek/cRg4o/2007 ontheifle ofthe Labour
Officer and Con'rm_i'ssio.ner'v.forWorkmen's Compensation, Tumkur
;_'j"li5i'strict':,..":'Tumkur p'a"rt'i'yV allowing the claim petition for
compenlsatioinh and_ seeking enhancement of compensation.
this matter was listed for admission, the
U"iearned.,_counse| for the appellant submitted that the matter may
be healrd on merits and the same may be disposed of. Notice
'vira"S'"issued to respondent No.1. In spite of service of notice,
there is no representation on behalf of respondent No.1. Notice
to respondent No.2 is dispensed vide order dtd.31–1–2009. The
fix'
materiai piaced before this Court is sufficient to s:4r:~f:"the
matter at this stage.
3. The claimant No.1 in the C’our1′:_”ib’eIoCw ‘isrthie:.V’iw.ifevi_:of
deceased Shabbir, who was a d’;-iii/”er in a’~i:ernpo”..be’ajri~ng §;\Eo.KF~.»–.C’
05 AA -7176. The tempo__met wpit.h:’a_n”Vaccident..on_§.9–8–20O5.
Consequentiy, Shabbir die’d.iA’T..H.e_ Rs.5,000/~ per
month and daily bata of RsA.’1UG/f. about 31 years.
4. In the Co*u.rt._v:be»|ow;’-therespondent No.1 and 2 have
filed objections staté*ment.»- respondent No.1 has stated in
his objpegctiyon statienfient that Shabbir was drawing a saiary of
inA’Rs.%i,:O€jtJ;’–_V’sa:nd..daily bata of Rs.100/–.
,5’L’C.-T[he”2″”T’?.._re~sp’ondent Insurance Company has stated in the
Vo.bjectio’n stvaternent that the tempo 107 bearing Reg.i\Eo.KA~O5
176 was insured with it.
€..Tn’e sum and substance of the finding of the Labour Officer
C -a:nd’Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation is as under:
9/,
U’?
“The wife of the deceased was examined”‘andeisihejég
has stated in her evidence that decease.d.-wjasVearniriggd’
Rs.5,000/- per month, but sheitnhas.tnot’–asprodv¢’eiq.,,_§ihave7
document. Usuaily, heavy?motorivehicie,dr2’ver get a
saiary of Rs.4,000/- Der monthit’Shabhir a driver of
heavy motor vehiclettaiind intcovme was
assessed at Rs.4,OOO/vie…”.i§v”t:hie”V’Labour Officer
and i\1\i’or|_<.j_rrien';s'"Compensation and
50% the -'for awarding compensation
amount; the deceased was 31 years,
thejgfiactor 'V oi'– was taken and awarded a
or Rs.4,11,900/- (Rs.2,000 x 205.95). The
iearnevdvi:'?;vomVn1'i'ssioner for Workmen's Compensation has
aiso awarded interest at 12% per annum from one month
t from the date of adjudication".
-‘ Being aggrieved by the Judgment of the Court beiow,
“the””iciaimants have preferred this appeal seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
U
8. The substantiai questions of law that
this appeai are:
i) Whether the Commissioner
justified in holding that the4’res’p_ondentiyis”iiahvle”‘ it
to pay interest from ‘o.:n’e.yymonth.afte’ij
ofthe award Le. 19.s.2o;e7 ”
ii) Whether the A—-._._”C~o_m-mis_si,oner_i”for Workmen
justified in comVi’nc_7i_tol’f’_t:he that the
appellant: was iearjnlirig .on~!yj..RVs’.4.«O’O0 P.M. even
he§:,3e.st’alaiished–~vin.his evidence that he
was ea’rnin:g”il?§’s;S”,’@OO/-‘~ as salary and Rs.100/-
per day as” 2]
9._§gIt is the”‘content}.on of the learned Counsel for the
.A’a_ppeii.avlnts_¥A iAti1at*-..Vthe daily bata was not taken into
con’side.ration”_’v_vforfjawarding the compensation. In this case,
the em”ployVe.r”h’as not been examined. The claimant No.1
her evidence that deceased was earning Rs.5,000/-
.’pyer”‘v–mo’nth, whereas the employer states in his objection
T ”’–statement that he was paying saiary of Rs.-4,000/~ per month.
mihere is no positive evidence forthcoming that employer was
paying daily bata of Rs.100/-. Even he has not adduced any
0/
: 7
evidence to that effect. The learned Commissionergfor
Workmen’s Compensation has carefully examinedW_t”h,e”orallyV
and documentary evidence and assessed the inco__mejofi’the.’_fi V’
deceased at Rs.4,000/– per month. fCAon’si«rl_e’ring«
the deceased as 31 years and applyinotheAifactoifiofr.2’0S*..49’E.;”~
the learned Commissioner for Wo’rl.<Tm..en'sh Comepenséativon has
awarded a compensation' Rs;'4,'1V..i;,§"00/~. 'Tne"'vlearned
Commissioner for workmen'-is' C0ompensafi.on'_'_.has taken a
factor of 2'o5.95 Aiynlsvtefayd<of"20':'3._9*8rand there is a difference of
0.03. However there 348 days in preferring the
.appeal.,,._§'¢'"l'al<:ing intoliaccoiunt of ail aspects of the case and
'Sincend'iffere0n%ceA'"factor is only 0.03 and since the learned
Comrnlis_sioV'ne'r'v_v.for~,Workmen's Compensation has assessed the
vcompen"sati'on"b'y taking Rs.4,000/- as wages, I do not find
'reason"'to disturb the finding with regard to award of
comtwpeinsiation.
0′ 10. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the learned Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation has awarded interest at 12% per annum from
Q/”