Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh vs The Proprietor on 20 December, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
M.F.A NO. 8469 OF 2019 (WC)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMESH
S/O NANJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/O HARMAKKI
GONIBEEDU HOBLI
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K. VENKATE GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE PROPRIETOR
SURENDRA COFFEE ESTATE
R/O ANAJURU
GONIBEEDU HOBLI
MUDIGERE TALUK
Digitally signed by
SHAKAMBARI CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 2. THE MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
YASHORAM CHAMBERS
RATHNAGIRI ROAD
CHIKKAMAGALURU-577 101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.B. RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R1-SERVED)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
DATED 06/07/2019, PASSED IN ECA NO.02/2018, ON THE FILE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., MUDIGERE,
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT,
COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
This appeal by the appellant who has suffered
injuries during his employment, assails the Judgment and
Award dated 6.7.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge
and JMFC at Mudigere in ECA No.2/2018.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are; the
appellant/petitioner was a workman/employee employed
by Respondent No.1 in his Estate as Labourer. On
25.6.2017 at 8.00 a.m., while he was carrying a ladder
from the Estate to Road, he slipped and fell down and
sustained injury to his back bone, left hand, left thumb
and other parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to
M.G.M.Hospital, Mudigere by respondent no.1 where he
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
took first aid treatment and then as per the advise of the
doctor, he was shifted to M.G.Hospital, Chikamagalur
where he took treatment as in-patient from 25.6.2017 to
10.07.2017. It is the case of the appellant that due to the
accident, he is unable to do any work and he is bed ridden
and is permanently disabled. Inspite of the treatment, he
is unable to do any work and he has to depend on others
for his day-to-day activities. He contends that he
sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of his
employment under respondent no.1- Management. The
appellant approached respondent-Management for
compensation. But, since it is denied, he filed the claim
petition before the trial Court.
3. Upon service of notice, respondents appeared
through their counsel and filed objection statement
separately. Respondent no.1 admitted about employment
of appellant in his coffee estate and also occurrence of
accident. But, respondent no.1 contended that the
accident occurred due to the negligent act of
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
petitioner/appellant himself. Further, he contended that he
obtained W.C.Policy from respondent no.2 which was valid
and effective as on the date of accident and contended
that respondent no.2 is liable to pay the compensation to
the petitioner.
4. Respondent no.2 by filing independent written
statement denied the assertions made in the petition. It is
contended that, the respondent no.2 had issued W.C.
(General) Policy in favour of respondent no.1 to cover the
risk of 10 workers only with monthly wages of Rs.8,000/-
per month for the period commencing 31.1.2017
30.5.2018 as per the declaration submitted by respondent
no.1. Therefore, the liability of respondent no.2 is limited
and restricted to the insured declared wages. The penalty
and the interest on the award amount has to be saddled
on respondent no.1. The policy covers reimbursement of
Rs.25,000/- per employee towards medical expenses only.
The respondent no.2 does not admit about the injury
sustained by the claimant during employment and there
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
exists no relationship between petitioner and respondent
no.1 as that of employer and employee. the disability
certificate so produced is concocted, the petitioner is put
to strict proof. In the event the claimant is held entitled for
compensation, this respondent is not liable t pay the
interest on the compensation amount. The injuries are
simple in nature. The respondent no.1 has to produce the
wage register, attendance register, voucher and other
documents to prove the employment of the petitioner.
Amongst other grounds, it is prayed by respondent no.2 to
dismiss the petition.
5. The trial Court on the above pleadings framed
the following issues for its consideration:
(i) Whether the petitioner proves that, there
exist a relationship of employee and employer
between him and the respondent No.1?
(ii) Whether the petitioner proves that, accident
took place and he sustained injury during the
course of employment?
(iii) What is the age of the employee at the time
of accident?
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
(iv) What is the wage of the employee at the time
of accident?
(v) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, what is the amount of
compensation and from whom?
(vi) What order?
6. In order to prove the case of the petitioner,
petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and got
examined Dr.K.Hebbar as PW.2 and got marked
documents from Ex.P1 to P9. Respondent no.1 got
examined himself as RW.1 and respondent No.2 examined
Development Officer A.N.Naveen as RW.2 and got marked
Ex.R1 to R5.
7. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, on
perusal of the material on record i.e. discharge summary,
statement, MLC Register, Case sheet, Disability Certificate
and X-ray as per Ex.P4 to P9 and considering the evidence
of PW.1, PW.2, RW.1 and RW.2, answered issue nos. 1 to
5 in the affirmative and issue no.6 as per the final order.
The trial Court has also taken into consideration the
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
attendance register as per Ex.R1 and 2, letter Ex.R3,
Postal cover-Ex.R4 and Insurance Policy as per Ex.R5
marked on behalf of respondents. Referring to Section 4
of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 and taking into
consideration the relevant factor into consideration, the
trial Court awarded a compensation of Rs.1,19,586/- with
interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till its
realization from respondent. The trial Court held
respondent nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay
the compensation, however, directed the insurer to deposit
the compensation amount within one month from the date
of the order together with interest.
8. Being dissatisfied by the said order/award the
appellant is before this Court in this appeal seeking
enhancement of compensation.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner
submits that, the said injuries so sustained by the
petitioner during his employment. He was 38 years old at
that time. Because of the injuries so sustained by him,
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
now he has been permanently disabled. His whole family is
depending upon him. He is deprived of his livelihood.
According to him, the compensation so awarded by the
Tribunal is on lower side. Hence, as per the grounds urged
in the appeal memo, it is prayed by the counsel for the
appellant to enhance the compensation amount.
10. As against this submission, counsel for
respondent no.2 opposed the said submission of the
counsel for appellant and submits that, even the
compensation so awarded by the Tribunal is on higher
side. The Tribunal ought not have awarded that much of
compensation. He justified the reasons assigned by the
Tribunal. So far as findings of the Tribunal with regard to
relationship of employer and employee in between
petitioner and respondent no.1, his salary at Rs.8,000/-
per month is not disputed by the respondent no.2. It is
conceded that the respondent no.2 has not preferred any
appeal being aggrieved by the said judgment and award. It
is prayed to dismiss the appeal.
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
11. On perusal of the entire materials on record, it
is not in dispute that the appellant is an employee under
the respondent no.1 which is admitted by the respondent
no.1 himself. Further, regarding occurrence of the accident
and sustaining of injuries by the appellant during the
course of employment is also admitted by respondent
no.1. Thus, the learned trial Court answered issue nos.1
and 2 in the affirmative. Further, the age of the appellant
i.e. 38 years as on the date of accident is not disputed.
The wages which he was earning was Rs.8,000/- per
month is also not disputed by the respondent. Now, the
question for consideration by this Court is as to whether
the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation
and if held entitled, to what extent?.
12. Having regard to the evidence placed on record
particularly PW.2 the Doctor who examined the appellant
has stated that the appellant had sustained disability of
40% to the affected ‘Dorso Lumbor Trunk’ and reckoned
1/3rd of it has disability to the whole body which
– 10 –
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
approximately comes to 13.33%. The trial Court
considered the permanent total disability. According to
Workmen Compensation Insurance Claim Amount for
various disabilities 60% of monthly wages to be considered
and relevant age factor of the present employee is 186.90
having regard to the age. Thus, the trial Court calculated
the total compensation payable to the appellant to
Rs.1,19,586/-. The trial Court has calculated the
compensation on the basis of age and wages of the
appellant. The age is considered as 39 years and wages as
Rs.8,000/-. The injuries sustained by the appellant are
taken into consideration.
13. To prove the disability, the petitioner has
examined Dr.K.P.Hebbar, the treated doctor as PW.2.
According to him, he has treated the petitioner for his pain
in the lower back. Petitioner has visited his hospital many
times to take the pain killer injection and tablets.
According to him, the petitioner has sustained “fracture of
thoracic 12 and lumbar compression fracture”. He was
– 11 –
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
treated as in-patient in his hospital from 25.6.2017 and
10.7.2017 and further he was advised to take bed rest for
a period of eight weeks. That means, for about three
months this petitioner was idle without any employment
and has lost his income during laid up period. According to
doctor, on getting the x-ray and on clinical examination
the petitioner has sustained 40% permanent physical
disability to his ‘dorso lumbar trunk’ because of his
disability it is difficult for him to work long period and carry
heavy object and to do any other hard manual work. He is
advised to use LS Belt permanently. He has issued Ex.P8
the disability certificate. He has been cross-examined by
respondent no.1 and 2 but, nothing worth is elicited
though intensive cross-examination is directed to him. It is
suggested that, if the petitioner could take a treatment in
major hospital, the percentage of disability would have
been less. But, this suggestion is denied by him. But,
admits that, petitioner can carry out his day to day
activities without any assistance.
– 12 –
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
14. The disability certificate do reveal about
sustaining of permanent disability to the petitioner. Other
documents are not denied by the respondents while
marking them.
15. The learned trial Court, while giving findings on
issueno.4 has held that, in view of the evidence brought on
record by the petitioner, his monthly income was
Rs.8,000/- as per the central notification dated
31.05.2010. Therefore, the petitioner’s income is
calculated at Rs.8,000/- per month as on the date of said
injury sustained by him during the course of his
employment. I do not find any mistake or error in such a
conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court as it is in
accordance with the central notification.
16. As per the evidence of PW. 1, he has sustained
the aforesaid fracture and compression and despite taking
treatment both as in-patient and outpatient and as per
doctor he has suffered 40% disability as per his evidence.
As per the evidence of the doctor, the petitioner took
– 13 –
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
treatment as in-patent for 15 days and thereafter, he was
advised to undergo bed rest for eight weeks. It has come
in the evidence of the doctor that there is no difficult for
the petitioner to do his day to day activities without any
assistance. But, anyhow he has sustained disability to
some extent and rightly the trial Court has reckoned his
disability to 13.33% which in my opinion is based upon the
evidence placed on record. By this time, the injuries must
have been healed and disability must have been reduced
to a considerable extent as because he was quite young
when he sustained injuries. Therefore, it is held that, the
petitioner has lost his working capacity to the extent of
13.33% to the whole body as held by the trial Court. I do
not find any error in such finding.
17. According to the petitioner he was aged 39
years and Section 4 of Employees compensation Act
provides relevant factor to reckon the compensation which
is 186.90. His income is Rs.8,000/- per month. As per
Workmen Insurance Claim amount for various disabilities,
– 14 –
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
it is stated that with regard to permanent total disability,
60% of the monthly wage is to be taken based upon the
relevant age factor subject to a minimum of RS.1,40,000/-
If that analogy is applied, rightly the Tribunal has taken
60% of the monthly wages of the petitioner and has
applied multiple as the relevant factor to determine the
compensation under the head of loss of earnings and
arrived at Rs.1,19,586/- which in my opinion is just and
proper. The compensation so arrived at by the trial Court
at Rs.1,19,586/- does not require any interference.
18. Though the petitioner says that he has spent
Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses but, no documents
are produced. But, however, he has taken treatment as in-
patient as well as out-patient and was advised to take bed
rest for eight weeks. PW.2 Doctor has stated that,
petitioner used to visit his hospital for further treatment.
He used to take pain killer injection and tablets. The
petitioner must have spent some money towards medical
expenses nutrition, special diet, conveyance charges,
– 15 –
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
attendant charges etc. In the absence of any evidence,
taking into consideration all these factors, if a global
amount of Rs.40,000/- is awarded, it would meet the ends
of justice. The Tribunal has awarded interest on the above
amount at 12% placing reliance on the Judgment in
Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and others vs. National
Insurance Company Ltd and Others, reported in
(2014) 2 SCC 298 from the date of accident till
realization.
19. Thus, the claimant is held entitled to a total
compensation of Rs.1,69,586/- rounded off to
Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as
awarded by the Tribunal. Both the respondents are jointly
and severally held liable to pay the compensation.
However, as there is no volition of terms and conditions of
the policy. Hence, Respondent No.2- Insurance Company
is directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded
by the Tribunal if not already deposited and also the global
– 16 –
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
compensation awarded in this appeal with interest at 12%
p.a. Hence, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal is allowed in-part.
(ii) Judgment and Award dated 6.7.2019
passed by the Senior Civil Judge and
JMFC, Mudigere in ECA No.2/2018 is
modified.
(iii) Appellant-employee is awarded a global
compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest
at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till
actual realization in addition to the
compensation awarded by the trial Court.
(iv) Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is
directed to deposit the compensation
awarded by the trial Court if not already
deposited and also the enhanced
compensation along with interest at 12%
from the date of accident till realization.
– 17 –
NC: 2024:KHC:53061
MFA No. 8469 of 2019
(v) Registry is directed to transmit the record
to the concerned trial Court
Registry to draw the modified award accordingly.
Sd/-
(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR)
JUDGE
SK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3