Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1253 (KAR)

Yankanagouda v. K. Pampapathi Patil

2020-06-26

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J. - Even though the case is at the stage of admission but at the consent of the learned counsels for both the parties, this appeal is taken up for final hearing and for disposal finally. 2. The present appeal is preferred under Section 30 of the Employee's Compensation Act, (for brevity hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') challenging the judgment and award passed in ECA No.02/2016 dated 01.03.2017 by the Senior Civil Jude and JMFC, Lingasugur. 3. The deceased was under the employment of respondent No.1, working as driver in the lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-37/A-2932 which is owned by respondent No.1 and is insured with respondent No.2 and on 11.05.2013 as per the instruction of respondent No.1 employer the deceased was driving the said lorry for unloading the pesticide bags to Hagaribommanhalli and while he was proceeding near Edga ground on Kerehalli Agalakera village road at about 7.30 p.m. the lorry met with an accident and as a result of the said accident the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot followed by registration of criminal case in Crime No.131/2013 before Koppal Police Station. 4. The parents of the deceased have filed the claim petition before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Commissioner. The father of the deceased adduced evidence as PW.1 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of respondents there are no evidences adduced before the learned Senior Civil Judge. 5. Based on the evidence adduced, the learned Senior Civil Judge has taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/- per month and according to the age of the deceased an appropriate factor was taken at 219.95 and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- includes sum of Rs.10,000/- towards funeral expenses. Thus, in all the total compensation amount of Rs.6,70,000/- has been awarded with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition. 6. Being aggrieved by awarding lesser amount of compensation as the learned Senior Civil Judge ought to have taken monthly income of Rs.8,000/- per month but has considered on lower side at Rs.6,000/- and thus awarded lesser compensation. Therefore, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 7. The second respondent had contested the appeal through Advocate Sri.Manvendra Reddy. 8. Heard the arguments on both sides. The substantial question of law arise for consideration is- 1. Therefore, the claimants have preferred the present appeal. 7. The second respondent had contested the appeal through Advocate Sri.Manvendra Reddy. 8. Heard the arguments on both sides. The substantial question of law arise for consideration is- 1. Whether considering the factors that the deceased was the driver of the truck cognizance of monthly income of Rs.6,000/- per month as taken by the learned Senior Civil Judge is correct considering the nature of the job and prevailing wage as on the date of accident ? 2. Whether the award of interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition by the learned Senior Civil Judge is correct ? 9. The leaned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Senior Civil Judge ought to have taken the income at Rs.8,000/- per month considering the factors that the deceased was driving a heavy goods vehicle which is truck involved in the present case. Therefore, the income as taken by the learned Senior Civil Judge is on lower side and ought not to have considered at Rs.6,000/- per month. 10. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the income taken by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Rs.6,000/- per month is correct and appropriate and accordingly compensation awarded by the learned Senior Civil Judge is correct and there is no need to interfere with the judgment and award passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge. 11. In the present case, upon considering the avocation of the deceased who was the driver of the truck, it is not disputed fact that the deceased was holding heavy goods vehicle driving licence and was driving the truck. Therefore, when the deceased was driving the truck which is heavy goods vehicle and considering the year of the accident on 11.05.2013, the income as taken by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Rs.6,000/- per month is very low and perhaps the learned Senior Civil Judge has not considered the daily batta and the deceased was also contributing the income to the family. Therefore, even if batta is paid at Rs.200/- per day, the said batta is also to be considered as income of the deceased as substantially the workman uses to make contribution towards the maintenance of family. Therefore, even if batta is paid at Rs.200/- per day, the said batta is also to be considered as income of the deceased as substantially the workman uses to make contribution towards the maintenance of family. Therefore, on this pretext, I am of the opinion that the monthly income taken by the learned Senior Civil Judge is on lower side. Therefore, if monthly income of Rs.8,000/- is taken into consideration and if compensation is awarded then that would be the proper and just compensation. 12. Further more the Central Government in the Notification No.S.O.1258(E), dated 31.05.2010 has raised the income of workman at Rs.8,000/- as monthly wages. Therefore, when the central Government by way of statute has recognized the monthly income of workman at Rs.8,000/- per month then whatever lower than that would amount to injustice to the workman. Therefore, in the present case the monthly wage at Rs.8,000/- per month is taken into consideration and accordingly the compensation is recalculated and quantified as follows;- Rs.8000x50%x219.95=Rs.8,79,800/-. 13. In the present case, the learned Senior Civil Judge has awarded interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition but as per Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act the compensation amount is to be awarded with simple interest thereon at the rate of 12% per annum from the date it fell due. Therefore, in the present case, the rate of interest awarded by the learned Senior Civil Judge at 6% per annum is contrary to the above provision. Therefore, in the present case the rate of interest at the rate of 12% per annum shall be given as per Section 4A(3)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, substantial questions of law is answered 14. Thus, the appellants are entitled total compensation of Rs.8,79,800/- with statutory interest as stated above from the date of accident as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pratap Narain Singh Deo vs. Srinivas Sabata and Another, (1976) 1 SCC 289 and Saberabibi Yakubbhai Shaikh and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 298 . In view of the above reasoning the appeal partly succeeds and accordingly the appeal is allowed in part and disposed of.