__. 5:351; .. 'V
MFA No.20943/2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENC8 AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10th DAY 01-' DEcEMBER--;'.§Oo§.1'%;*--- T.
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTi(;E r3;s.3PAT_iL' T
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AP3?EA_L NT)'.-26943i'2'i)DvS§_ gwé} VA
Between: K M T T T
THE BRANCH MANAGER,
OREENTAL INSURANCE COMPANE l;TD._, " .
BELLARY, V
THROUGH ITS HUBLI..RE(_}IONA,L OFP'i--CE; '
REPRESENTEDBY "
CHIEF REG:Q:eAL,MA.N-A6313" g
ORIENTAL 1NsuR;A1\;cE"c:QM}éA.NYAALTD.;
SUMANGALA
LAMINGTON ROAD,
HUBL1. 1 ' ' * APPELLANT
{By sri.M.K.s9uc1aga;~;'"Advj'~;_ '
V. ' v..,é1»5T'.'é,A.SAMMA
'V _w,10v.1,ATE;T_PLIJARI
._ "'AGE';53.,YEARS, OCC:I-IOUSEHOLD,
A R'/0 CA1\ETONi\/IENT,
"DISTEBELLARY.
H " " ' A. , TSHRI~'.i).DANAYYA
V SXO HANUMANTHAPPA
Vd"-.GE:MAJOR, OCCBUSINESS,
R/O VILLAGE I-IALAKUNDI,
DI ST: BELLARY. ... RESPONDENTS
MFA No.20943/2009
[By Sri.y.Lakshmikanth Roddy, Adv for R1,
Sri.B.Chidananda, Adv for R2)
This appeal is filed under Section 30 (1) of
against the judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 passed’ _
W.C.47’7/200′?’ on the file of the Commissioner for._Worl<;merx's_'1
Compensation, Sub Division-II, Bella.–ry,'v–..:f..awardi1ig
compensation of Rs.4,48,000/«- along :wiith'inte1':est. 12°/o
This appeal coming on for admission; this the ._
delivered the following:
JUDGMENT’ _
1. This is an appeal Irisuranee’iéompanviriAchallenging
the award passed by Workmen’s
C0mP€T1S3~ti0D, f i it ‘ awarding
compensation: in /4 along with interest at
12% pa with ‘effeet “of expiry of 30 days from the
date of death’;,__’ ”
Claimant-respondent being the mother of the deceased
Aflrnmired _g the Clainis Tribunal seeking compensation contending
interalia that’v_vo_n’V~i.:i’2.i01.200′? when her son was discharging his
V .duties.”as ‘cleaner under the 2nd respondent, due to an
.,”¢A”‘–a§;’cidVaent that arose out of and during the course of
employment, he suffered serious injuries resulting in his death.
MFA No.20943f2009
Lo)
The claimant examined herself and deposed that her son was
earning Rs.-4,500/– as a cleaner. She relied on
Ex.P.8. The respondentminsurance Company i.
claim denying the assertions. I _
3. Based on the evidence on recorci, the Cominvissioneriii’has.y
recorded a finding that the was earning /– ” S
p.m. as a cleaner. The age of th€;r.deiceased was foundito be 20
years at the time of .:the_relevant factor
namely 224.00, coii1pensatio’r1 Rs.4,48,000/-
(400ox5ox22z} /. isioyoiii iiaiirarded along with
interest , V. ,
4. Learned’ appellant contends that there
was violation.eofithe”–permi.t ‘conditions inasmuch as the owner
V of thej-jehicle ha’c1.._taZsreni’the irehicle into the State of Andhra
i?_Prad.e_sh the accident in question occurred while the
viehici-“e__ voperated beyond the jurisdiction of the State
i ii of Kar’nata_ka.._’Et is his next contention that the income taken
–. Rsy.4,()z0vQi7- per month is unsupportable from the evidence on
reeo1’d..f=i He has also urged that interest awarded at 12% pa.
M? A No.20943/2009
from the date of expiry of 30 days from death is illegal and
opposed to the principles laid down in the judgment
by the Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL .
COMPANY LIMITED VS. MOHD. 1\ms;3g1ND1.’ANo?1fHERV”;AL§l ” ‘V V
2009 sew 371 7).
5. Counsel appearing for t’he”‘~1jespoiide1:ts the * it
findings recorded.
6. Having heard the learned parties and on
perusal of the rnater__ials ;on” that there is no
substance in urged’ thewappellant regarding
the violation l’permit:i.cond’itions. of all, there is no such
plea takenirl the vxrilttenstaterrient. Unless a specific plea is
raised, no arnount of. evidence adduced on this aspect will come
‘lite-..the-help’-iof the appveilant-Insurance Company. Secondly, as
per “”.:li1_e’sproyisionvs”‘contained under Section 88 of the Motor
‘ Vehicles a perusal ‘of the second proviso appended
topsub section 1 of Section 88 would disclose that where both
starting point and the terminal point of a route are situate
___”Witl?i;in the same State, but part of such route lies in any other
MFA N-3.20943/2009
State and the length of such part does not exceed sixteen
kilometres, the permit shall be valid in the other ..St.a’tei*-ri,n
respect of that part of the route which is in that ~
notwithstanding that such permit has not beerniictflntersigned
by the State Transport authority or’-._thr_.:”‘eRiegi’onal:i’Tran’spott’
Authority of that other State. All further’perusal’Voif}Se.ction 88
will make it clear that the requirernienty offiobtainina counter
signature from the authoiritiieisol” subject to
other conditions. __In this the..irnatter, unless the
Insurance ihaiiispiecijfic’contention with regard
to the violation. go for trial on the
basis of andissues raised, this court
cannot in zexuercisg. u/s 30 (1) of the Workrr1en’s
Cornpensationiiiiflct».rccordh”lindings which are beyond the
Hence, iethe”‘”fiVrst contention urged is liable to be
r’e_iet:ted’.a.
Z ‘7. A se.cond: contention pertaining to the wages earned by
~._th.e deceased cannot also be sustained as the evidence on
it record discloses that the deceased was engaged as a cleaner in
lorry. The assertion of the claimant is that the deceased
MFA No.20943/2009
was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. No documentary evidence
can be expected from a cleaner for receiving
Therefore, the Commissioner has recorded his find_i–n.g ~
the oral evidence adduced before Tiftel”‘aclc,idei1tv”has
occurred in the year 2007. The dec’ease’de
cleaner in a lorry in Bellaryi in connection 7VVvvi..ti:..,_,,mining , *
operations. Hence, it cannot be .that_ythe fearningsvitaken at
Rs.4,000/- per month is _ if if
8. As regards the last the appellant
is justified at 12% p.a.
with effect 1ttetri..f¢-eepity, the date of death is
not legallliancll judgment of the Apex Court
referred to slupra_mal,<es. i't.c,iear that for the period from the
4_ , date ofipetition till" expiry of 30 days from the date of the
IA'~.order,,interest–at».7V2 "/0 p.a. could be granted and for the rest of
the .periodV,"statu't'o'ry interest at 12% p.a. has to be awarded.
_ Accordingly to the aforesaid extent, the award deserves to
fnodified. Hence, this appeal is allowed in part. While
.___"ConfI:rming the amount determined as compensation payable,
it
MFA No.20943!2009
the interest awarded is modified making it clear that the
claimant is entitled to interest at 7'/2% from the date of petition
till 18.12.2008 and thereafter at the rate of 12%; _
date of payment. _
10. The amount in deposit sha11:”gbe:’_A_Ait15anisfe_r1’ed
Commissioner for Workrnen’s C:1rf1pensation.V _’l’he”~app.e1iant– * V
Insurance Company shall__deposit..the._balance amount, if any,
within four weeks from thddate a copy of this
judgment. If any vexcesg..~~.,amot1f1t_fis it ‘deposited, the
appellant is entitied :ior:V–_reVt’u:_r:d’. it ‘
Judge