&

AWARD

DATED.06.07.2019, PASSED IN ECA.NO.17/2016 ON THE FILE OF

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC CUM COMMISSIONER FOR

WORKMEN COMPENSATION, HOSAPETE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE

CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT

OF COMPENSATION.

Digitally signed

by K M

SOMASHEKAR

Location:

DHARWAD

Date: 2023.05.27

12:03:18 -0700

- 2 -

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

S.G. PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the

consent of both learned counsel, matter is taken up for

final disposal.

2.

The claimant is before this Court dissatisfied

with the quantum of compensation awarded under

judgment and award dated 06.07.2019 in ECA No.17/2016

on the file of the learned Addl. Senior Civil Judge and

JMFC-cum-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation

(for short, ‘Trial Court’), praying for enhancement of

compensation.

3.

Heard learned counsel Sri.Gourishankar H Mot,

for the appellant and Sri.Nagaraj C Kolloori, learned

counsel for respondent-Insurance Company and perused

the appeal papers.

2.

The claimant being wife of the deceased

Parameshwarappa Kaddipudi filed a claim petition under

- 3 -

Section 10 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923

seeking compensation for the accidental death of her

husband that took place on 05.09.2016 involving Lorry

bearing Registration No.KA-25/B-9428. It is stated that

the deceased was aged about 42 years as on the date of

the accident and he was working as Driver under

respondent No.1/Owner of lorry in question and getting

salary of Rs.10,500/- per month.

3.

On issuance of notice, respondents No.1 & 2

appeared through their learned counsel and filed their

separate statement of objections denying the allegations

made in the claim petition. Respondent No.2-Insurane

company inter-alia contended that there is no relationship

of employer and employee between respondent No.1 and

deceased. It was further contended that the driver of the

offending lorry was not having valid and effective driving

license as on the date of the accident and thereby violated

the terms and conditions of policy. Thus, prayed for

dismissal of the claim petition.

- 4 -

4.

Before the trial Court, claimant-wife of the

deceased examined herself as PW1 and got marked the

documents as Exs.P1 to P12. Respondent No.2/Insurer

examined one witness as RW1 and got marked documents

as Ex.R1 and R2. The Trial Court based on the material

evidence on record awarded total compensation of

Rs.5,64,110/- with interest at 12% per annum.

5.

While awarding the above compensation, the

Trial Court assessed the notional income of the deceased

at Rs.6,000/- per month, deducted 50% towards personal

and living expenses of the deceased. The claimant not

being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Trial Court is before this Court praying for

enhancement of compensation.

6.

Sri.Gourishankar H Mot, learned counsel for the

appellant-claimant would submit that the notional income

of the deceased assessed by the trial Court at Rs.6,000/-

per month is on the lower side, since the deceased was

working as Driver under respondent No.1 and earning

- 5 -

Rs.10,500/- per month. He further submits that the trial

Court has erred in fastening liability on respondent

No.1/owner of offending lorry insofar as payment of

interest on the award amount. Thus, he prays for allowing

the appeal.

7.

Sri.Nagaraj

C

Kolloori,

learned

counsel

appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company would

contend that in the absence of any documentary and

cogent evidence to establish the income of the deceased,

the trial Court has rightly assessed notional income of the

deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month, which is just and

proper.

He

further

submits

that

the

Tribunal

on

appreciation of the material on record has rightly awarded

compensation, which does not call for any interference at

the hands of this Court. Thus, he prays for dismissal of

the appeal.

8.

Having heard the learned counsel