Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 841
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Anil B. Katti, J.
Ningappa – Appellant
Versus
Shamimbanu & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 6722 of 2017 (WC)
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Siddappa B.M, Advocate, Pradeep B, Advocate
The main legal point established is that the determination of compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act is influenced by the minimum wages and the liability for interest on compensation arises from the date of the accident.
Headnote:
Employees' Compensation Act - Minimum Wages - Section 4(1)B - Section 4(1)A - Section 4A(3)(a)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee, sustained injuries during the course of employment and sought compensation. The trial court awarded compensation, but the appellant challenged the judgment, arguing that the wages received were below the minimum wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's wages were indeed below the minimum wages as per the Gazette Notification. It also held that the liability to pay interest on the compensation arose from the date of the accident, not the date of the order.
Issues: Whether the appellant's wages were below minimum wages and the liability for interest on compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the appellant's wages were below the minimum wages as per the Gazette Notification and held the owner liable to pay interest on the compensation from the date of the accident.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, modifying the judgment to award the appellant total compensation of Rs.97,603, with respondent No.2 liable to pay the compensation and respondent No.1 liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the accident.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
Anil B. Katti, J. - Appellant is challenging the judgment and award passed by Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Challakere in ECA No.5/2016 dated 20.02.2017.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred according to their ranks before the Tribunal.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of claimant/appellant can be stated in nutshell to the effect that appellant was Hamali under employment of respondent No.1 who is owner of Lorry bearing No.CTW 9729 and met with accident on 25.11.2014. Prior to one year of accident, he was working under the employment of respondent No.1 and getting salary of Rs.8,000/- and Rs.200/- towards Batta per day. On 25.11.2014, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of said lorry, appellant fell down from the lorry and sustained injuries. The appellant was treated as indoor patient from 26.11.2014 to 18.12.2014 in Chitradurga Hospital and has undergone surgery, so also spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, prayed for grant of compensation.
4. In response to notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed objections. Respondent No.1 has admitted that deceased was his employee and on 22.11.2014, during the course of employment met with accident and sustained injuries. The appellant was engaged by this respondent on his lorry to load husk at Huliyaru as a coolie. The vehicle is duly insured with respondent No.2 and if appellant is found to be entitled for any compensation, then respondent No.2 has to pay the same. Therefore, seeks to exonerate from the liability to pay any compensation to appellant.
5. Respondent No.2 contended that there was no relationship of employer and employee between deceased and respondent No.1. The age, occupation and income of deceased has been denied. Respondent No.1 as owner of lorry has entrusted to an unlicensed person to drive the vehicle and as such, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation. The liability to pay compensation is subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of petition.
6. The appellant relied on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and documents at Exs.P.1 to P.11. Respondent No.2 relief on the evidence of RW.1and the document at Ex.R.1. The Trial Court on appreciating the evidence has partly allowed the petition by awarding compensation of Rs.48,801/- with interest at 12% p.a. from respondent No.2.
7. Appellant sustained injuries during the course of employment under respondent No.1 on 25.11.2014 is not at issue. The grievance of appellant is that the wages taken is below minimum wages.
8. The substantial questions of law raised by appellant are;
i) Whether the wages taken of appellant is below minimum wages?
ii) What order?
9. Heard the arguments of both sides.
10. Indisputably, appellant suffered injuries during the course of employment under respondent No.1 on 25.11.2014. Therefore, the present case is covered in terms of Section 4(1)B of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (for short 'Act'). The compensation has to be determined for an amount equal to 60% of the monthly wages of the injured employee multiplied by the relevant factor.
11. The wound certificate Ex.P.6 reveals that on examination petitioner was found tenderness and swelling in the right wrist, tenderness in the right hip region and external rotation of the right lower limb. He was admitted as indoor patient in Government hospital, Chitradurga from 26.11.2014 to 18.12.2014. PW.2 was examined to prove the disability suffered by the petitioner. The evidence of PW.2 would go to show that the petitioner has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50.19% of upper lower and right lower limb. The Trial Court has accepted the permanent disability to the extent of 10%. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the petitioner and the evidence of PW.2, it would be appropriate to take the permanent disability suffered by the petitioner as 15%.
12. The Trial Court in the absence of any proof regarding the
