The Divisional Manager v. Mrs.Bhagya

Judgment and Award dated

04.02.2023 in ECA.No.82/2019 passed by the VII Additional SCJ and ACMM, Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-3, Bengaluru1.

¶2The Insurer is in appeal on liability to pay the compensation, excess than the amount provided under the provision of the Employee's Compensation Act cap limit of Rs.8,000/- and the claimant is in appeal seeking enhancement of compensation by considering the actual income.

¶3Heard Sri.Gurudev Prasad K.T, learned counsel appearing for the claimant in both the appeals and Sri.Devraj K.S, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer in both the appeals and Sri. Rahul.M, learned counsel appearing for the employer.

1 'Tribunal' for short

¶4Sri.Gurudev Prasad K.T, with all vehemence submits that, the Tribunal ought to have considered the actual income of the deceased stated by the employer who has been examined as RW2, unequivocally and categorically stated before the Tribunal that, the deceased was an employee under him and he was paying him Rs.600/- per day i.e., Rs.18,000/- per month, however, the Tribunal has considered Rs.15,000/- as per the notification issued by the Central Government in terms of the provisions contained in the Employees Compensation Act, and failed to consider the actual salary stated by the employer. Learned counsel further submits that, in the teeth of evidence of the employer, the actual salary ought to have been considered and sought to allow the appeal.

¶5Per contra, Sri.Devraj K.S, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer, with all vehemence submits that, in the cross-examination wife of the deceased claimant No.1 has categorically admitted that the

deceased was working under Shanmugam who was a contractor. The property admittedly belongs to one H.M.Vinod Kumar, and since the deceased was not an employee under the said Vinod Kumar their is no jural relationship of employer and employee. He further submits that as per the provisions, the cap limit fixed as of the date of accident is Rs.8,000/-. The Tribunal acted in excess considering the notification of the year 2020 to consider the income at the rate of Rs.15,000/-, which is not amenable, when there is no specific expression in the said notification to consider the same with retrospective effect. The notification is prospective in effect and the cap fixed under the Employees Compensation Act, must have been considered while awarding compensation.

¶6So far as Sri.Rahul.M, learned counsel for the employer submits that, he has given evidence in terms of the true facts which may be considered and appropriate orders may be passed.

¶7Having considered the rival submissions, this Court upon hearing finds no substantial question of law in the appeal filed by the claimant seeking for enhancement. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. However, so far as the judgment and award of the Tribunal is concerned, considering the higher income than the one fixed with a cap, as contemplated in the provisions of the Act, the appeal filed by the Insurer is admitted to consider the substantial question of law, which reads as under:

Whether the Court below is right in considering the salary of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- per month instead of Rs.8,000/- per month, in view of the provisions contemplated under the Employees' Compensation Act?

¶8So far as the argument of Sri.Devraj, learned counsel appearing for the Insurer is concerned, in view of the statement and evidence given by the employer i.e., Vinod Kumar, admitting the fact that deceased was working under him as an employee and he was paying him Rs.600/- per day as wages, nothing survives to consider

any of the arguments and there is no substantial question of law on jural relationship of employer and employee, and has been rightly considered by the Tribunal.

¶9So far as the substantial question of law stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the question framed required to be answered in favour of the Insurer for the simple reason that as per the cap limit fixed under the provisions contained in Section 4 of the Employees Compensation Act, which states about amount of compensation, the amount fixed under the said provision as wages on the date of accident was Rs.8000/-.

¶10This Court, without any further deliberation has to consider the income fixed with cap under the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the amount fixed at the rate of Rs.15,000/- as monthly wages by the Tribunal requires a reversal and in the place of Rs.15,000/-, Rs.8,000/- as monthly wages, is considered to award appropriate Compensation.

¶11Further this Court is of the opinion that the claimants are also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards expenditure of the funeral expenses. In view of considering the wages at a reduced rate of Rs.8,000/-. This Court proceeds to reassess the compensation, which is as under:

¶12In view of considering the wages of Rs.8,000/- p.m. i.e., 50% of the same would come to Rs.4,000/- p.m., considering the age of deceased being 54 years, the applicable factor is 139.13. If the same is multiplied with Rs.4,000/-, the compensation come to Rs.5,56,520/-. However, this Court is not interfering with the medical expenses considered by the Tribunal at the rate of Rs.26,700/-. Accordingly, claimant is entitled for reassessed compensation of Rs.5,88,220/- (Rs.5,56,520 + Rs.5,000 + Rs.26,700), rounded off to Rs.5,90,000/-, which shall carry interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶13In view of the policy conditions, the appellant-Insurer is exonerated from paying the interest. The Insured is directed to pay the interest on the said amount from the date of 30 days from the incident till the amount is released in favor of the claimants.

¶14At this stage, Sri.Devraj, submits that entire amount ordered by the Tribunal under the Employees Compensation Act was deposited before the Tribunal and the claimants have withdrawn the entire amount.

¶15The Insured is liable to indemnify the Insurer with the amount paid in excess i.e., over and above the compensation of Rs.5,90,000/-, along with interest at 6% p.a., within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by making digital payment to the concerned Insurance company.

¶16Any failure on the part of the Insured, the Insurer is at a liberty to execute this award and recover

the amount along with interest paid in excess of Rs.5,90,000/-.

¶17Accordingly, the appeal by the claimant in MFA.No.2996/2023 is dismissed and appeal by the Insured in MFA.No.385/2024 is allowed in part.

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 2996 OF 2023 (ECA-) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 385 OF 2024 IN MFA No. 2996/2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAGYA W/O CHINNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. KUM. JAYANTHI D/O CHINNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS , 3. KUM DIVYA D/O CHINNA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS , 4. KUM DEEPIKA D/O CHINNA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO 98, CORPORATION COLONY , MURPHY ROAD, HALSUR, BENGALURU NORTH HAL 2ND STAGE BENGALURU – 560 008 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K T., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka AND: 1. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., D.O.NO. 01,UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE, NO 72, 3RD FLOOR, MISSION ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027 BY ITS MANAGER 2. SRI.H.M. VINOD KUMAR NO.65, BALAJI STREET, ULSOOR, BENGALURU – 560 026. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ K. S, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. RAHUL.M, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS MFA FILED U/S.30(1) EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT.04.02.2023 PASSED IN ECA NO.82/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT-3, BENGALURU, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION. IN MFA NO. 385/2024 BETWEEN: THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NO.01, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX NO.72, 3RD FLOOR, MISSION ROAD, UDUPI – 560 027 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. DEVARAJ K. S..,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. BHAGYA W/O CHINNU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. MS. JAYANTHI D/O CHINNU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 3. MS. DIVYA D/O CHINNU AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 4. MS DEEPIKA D/O CHINNU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.98, CORPORATION COLONY, MURPHY ROAD, HA;SUR, BANGALORE NORTH, HA; 2ND STAGE, BENGALORE – 560 008. 5. MR. H.M.VINOD KUMAR NO.65, BAZAR STREET, ULSOOR, BANGALORE – 560 087 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GURUDEV PRASAD K.T, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. RAHUL.M, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS MFA FILED U/S 30(1) EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.02.2023 PASSED IN ECA NO. 82/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE VII ADDITIONAL SCJ AND ACMM, MEMBER, MACT, BENGALURU, AWARDING TOTAL COMPENSATION OF RS.10,75,175/-.THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEING THE INSURER ARE DIRECTED TO DEPOSIT. RS.10,43,475/- TO THE PETITIONERS WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. FURTHER THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IS DIRECTED TO PAY RS.26,700/- TOWARDS MEDICAL EXPENSES TO THE PETITIONERS. THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT These two appeals by claimants and Insurer assailing