1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMANI
M.F.A. NO.2602 OF 2016 (WC)
BETWEEN:
ABDUL SATTAR
S/O SAYED SAB
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT 1ST MAIN ROAD
J.P.NAGAR
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
&APPELLANT
[BY SRI. M.V.MAHESWARAPPA, ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
VENKATESH
S/O H.P. VIRUPAKSHAPPA
OWNER SANATHAN WOOD INDUSTRIES
DOOR NO.2, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE
SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
&RESPONDENT
[BY SRI. RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE (VC)]
THIS M.F.A IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED
25.02.2016 PASSED IN ECA NO.75/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II
ADDITIONAL
SENIOR
CIVIL
JUDGE,
EMPLOYEES
COMPENSATION
2
COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA, DISMISSING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON
18.02.2022, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
Challenging judgment and order dated 25.02.2016
passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Employees
Compensation
Commissioner,
Shivamogga,
in
ECA
No.75/2014, this appeal is filed by claimant against dismissal
of his claim petition.
2.
Brief facts as stated are that claimant (hereinafter
referred to as 8workman9 for short) was a permanent employee
of respondent (8employer9 for short), as carpenter since 24
years, in Sanathana Wood Industries belonging to respondent.
That on 31.12.2008 at 4.30 p.m., when he was working as per
instructions of employer, he suffered permanent physical
disability when four fingers of his left hand got cut in planing
machine. Immediately after accident, one Dhananjaya - uncle
3
of employer, got workman admitted to Nanjappa Hospital,
where he was given inpatient treatment for two days and
discharged.
3.
It was stated that as on date of accident, workman
was 42 years of age, worked from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and
from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and was paid Rs.1,400/- per
week. And accident occurred while he was working on the
plainning machine as per instructions of employer. Therefore,
accident occurred during course of employment and out of
employment. Since claimant lost four fingers in accident, he
became permanently disabled and lost earning capacity.
Therefore, he filed application claiming compensation under
Sections 3, 4 and 10 of Employees Compensation Act
(hereinafter referred to as 8E.C.Act9 for short).
4.
Upon
service
of
summons,
employer
filed
objections, denying claim petition averments in toto. It was
contended that claimant was not employed by respondent and
4
was not on duty, on date of accident. Therefore, occurrence of
accident during course of employment and out of employment,
admission to hospital and taking treatment as well as claimant
suffering loss of earning capacity were denied. It was
specifically
asserted
that
respondent9s
father
3
Sri. Virupakshappa was owner of Sanathana Wood Industry,
who died about four years earlier and since his death, industry
remained closed. Therefore, there was no provision for work
and possibility of claimant being on duty as on date of
accident. It was also specifically asserted that none of
machines were running at time of accident and there was no
consumption of power by any of them. It was further stated
that workman had no right to enter industrial premises
without permission of owner and if workman got injured while
claiming to work illegally, employer was not liable to pay any
compensation.
5
5.
Based on pleadings, trial Court framed following
issues:
ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ
1. CfðzÁgÀ C§ÄÝ¯ï ¸ÀvÁÛgï EªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢ §½
PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄrAiÀİè
ªÁåSÁ夹gÀĪÀAvÉ
PÁ«ÄðPÀ
JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
2. ºÁVzÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 31.12.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃ
¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀÅqï EAqÀ¹ÖçAiÀİè PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ D PÉ®¸ÀzÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ C¥ÀWÁvÀ
¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ
JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß
CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ
gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
3. ºÁVzÀÝ
¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è
C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ
PÁgÀt¢AzÁV
CfðzÁgÀjUÉ GAmÁzÀ zÀÄrªÉÄAiÀÄ £ÀµÀÖzÀ ±ÉÃPÀqÀ
¥ÀæªÀiÁt
JµÀÄÖ
JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß
CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ
¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
4. C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì JµÀÄÖ?
CªÀgÀ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ªÉÃvÀ£À JµÀÄÖ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß CfðzÁgÀjUÉ
¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?
5. ºÁVzÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀPÉÌ
CºÀðgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀ¥ÀæwªÁ¢UÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw
ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¨ÁzsÀågÀÄ?
6. F §UÉÎ DzÉñÀ K£ÀÄ?
6
6.
To substantiate his claim, workman examined
himself as PW-1. Exhibits P.1 to P.12 were marked. No
evidence was led by employer. On consideration, trail Court
answered issue no.1 in affirmative holding that relationship of
employer and employee was established; issue no.2 in
affirmative holding that accident occurred during course of
employment and arose out of employment; issue no.3 in
affirmative holding that workman had sustained loss of
earning capacity of 28%; issue no.4 by holding monthly
income of workman was Rs.4,000/-, issue no.5 by determining
his age as 42 years and entitlement of compensation of
Rs.1,19,945/- by applying factor of 17
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.