MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.20996 OF 2013 (WC)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION ACT 1923, PRAYING TO, AWARD DATED 28.09.2012 IN WCA/SR/94/2011 PASSED BY THE LABOUR OFFICER AND WORKMAN COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER SUB DIV-I, BELGAUM, BELGAUM IN AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.2,64,172/- WITH 12% FROM 30TH DAY OF ACCIDENT AND MAY BE KINDLY MODIFIED BY ENHANCING TO RS.10,00,000/- WITH 18% INTEREST FROM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

ORAL JUDGMENT

DCL LKD+ A oa Hi a0 g cr X t1 Ai ena t M 0 N : ta a 0 i 2t l A o D a0 y n NR k 2 : s a A 6 K H i , gS . A D0 i nH g T 4h e h ET . d a0 K C I r 9 M b w A o y 1 u AR a0 rd N t : 0 B I o 9ef :n3c4h

Challenging judgment and award dated 28.09.2012 passed by Labour Officer and Workman Compensation Commissioner Sub Division-I, Belagavi, For short, ‘Commissioner’ in WCA SR no.94/2011, this appeal is filed.

Sri Yash Nadakarni, learned counsel appearing for Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for appellant submitted that appeal was by wife of deceased workman for enhancement of compensation. It was submitted that Ankush @ Arjun employed by respondent no.1 as loader in Lorry no.MH-11/T-4022, on daily wages of Rs.200/- with bhata of Rs.50/- per day and as per instructions of employer, he was on duty, when vehicle proceeding from Pune towards Bangaluru, met with accident on 12.06.2010 due to rash and negligent driving by driver. It was stated that as on date of accident, vehicle was insured by respondent no.2-Insurer. In accident, Ankush sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to same while under treatment. Alleging loss of dependency on account of sudden death, his wife and daughter filed claim application under provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 before Commissioner.

On appearance, claim application was opposed on all counts. Based on which Commissioner framed following issues:

“1) ªÀÄÈvÀgÀÄ PÁ«ÄðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1923 gÀ PÀ®A 2(1) (J£ï) ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÁ«ÄðPÀgÉÃ?

2) EzÀÝ ¥ÀPÀëzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀÅ ªÀÄÈvÀgÀ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ CªÀ¢üAiÀÄ°è ªÄÀvÄÀÛ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ ¥ÀjuÁªÀÄ¢AzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉAiÉÄÃ?

3) C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¤UÉ JµÀÄÖ ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÄÀ¸ÁìVzÝÀªÀÅ? ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ¹PÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ ªÉÃvÀ£ÀªÉµÀÄÖ?

4) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä CfðAiÀÄ°è PÉýgÀĪÀµÀÄÖ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£À ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÉAzÀÄ ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?

5) ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£ÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 4 (J) ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ CfðzÁgÀgÄÀ §rØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀðgÉÃ?

6) DzÉñÀªÁzÀ°è ¥ÀjºÁgÀ zsÀ£À, §rØ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀAqÀ gÀÆ¥ÀzÀ°è ¥ÀjºÁgÀ ¥ÁªÀw¸À®Ä AiÀiÁgÀÄ dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÀÄ?

7) CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ PÁ«ÄðPÀ£À PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀħzÀÞ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÉAzÄÀ gÀÄdĪÁvÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀgÉÃ?

8) F §UÉÎ DzÉñÀªÉãÀÄ?”

Applicant no.1 deposed as PW1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Respondent-Insurer did not lead oral evidence but got marked copy of insurance policy with consent as Ex.R2-1.

On consideration, Commissioner held relationship of employer and employee and occurrence of accident in course of and out of employment were established and assessing monthly income of deceased at Rs.4,500/- and applying factor of 117.41 corresponding to age of deceased workman, arrived at compensation amount of Rs.2,64,172/-. Dissatisfied with same, this appeal is filed.

It was firstly submitted, accident occurred on 12.06.2010 i.e., after issuance of Notification no.SO1258(E) dated 31.05.2010 by Central Government, notifying Rs.8,000/- to be monthly income for purpose of Section 4(1B) of Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, For short, ‘ EC Act’, which is to be considered regardless of of monthly income pleaded. Therefore, Commissioner was not justified in assessing monthly income at Rs.4,500/- and awarding lower compensation. It was submitted claimant had also produced medical bills totaling Rs.82,757/-. However, Commissioner did not award any compensation did not aw