MANJAMMA & ORS. vs S NAWAZ & ORS.

Appellants are the claimants. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and order dated 12.8.2011 passed in LOD/WCA:CR:55/2007 by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Davanagere District, Davanagere, (for short ''Commissioner for Workmen Compensation''), they have filed this appeal.

The claimants are the wife and children of the deceased Rangappa. They filed a claim petition contending that he was working as a Hamali in a mini lorry bearing Registration No.GA-02/T-9504 belonged to the 1st respondent herein. On 15.4.2005, as per instructions of the owner of the vehicle, after loading Neelgiri trees at Huliyur Durga, near Chowdukuppe, Kora village, Sira Taluk, Tumkur district, the said vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by its driver. In view of the accident, the husband of the 1st claimant and other coolies had sustained grievous injuries. However, the husband of the 1st claimant succumbed to the injuries. On the claim petition filed by the claimants, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation taking into consideration the income of the deceased Rangappa as Rs.3,000/- per month and applying the relevant factor considering the age of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs.2,76,255/-. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, the claimants have preferred this appeal.

The main contention of the learned Advocate, Sri Mahesh R Uppin is that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and bata of Rs.50/- per day. While awarding the compensation, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has not taken into consideration the bata received by the deceased. Further, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has not awarded any interest as per Section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act and sought for modifying the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.

On the other hand, Sri Shreeshaila, learned Advocate appearing for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company argued in support of the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation and contended that the 2nd respondent has already paid the compensation amount. Hence, the claimants are not entitled for interest. Further, no document was produced to show the income of the deceased earning Rs.3,000/- per month and bata of Rs.50/- per day. In the absence of necessary documents, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has taken into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and awarded the compensation and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused oral and documentary evidence and the order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.

The dispute is only with regard to the quantum of compensation is concerned. Though the claimants claimed that the deceased Rangappa was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as salary and Rs.50/- per day as bata, no document was produced to substantiate the same. The owner of the vehicle has not supported the case of the claimants. The oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties clearly disclose that the owner of the vehicle was paying salary of Rs.3,000/- per month The accident had occurred in the year 2005. The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties, taking the minimum wage being paid to a hamali as Rs.3,000/- per month and applying the relevant factor as provided under the Employee Compensation Act awarded compensation of Rs.2,76,255/-. Since the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company has already paid the compensation amount, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has not awarded the interest. Hence, I find there is no infirmity or irregularity in the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. Under the Employees Compensation Act, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has taken into consideration the minimum wage being paid to the employees and applied the relevant factor having regard to the age of the deceased for awarding the compensation. In the instant case, following the procedure prescribed under the Employees Compensation Act, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation has awarded a just and fair compensation. The appellants have not made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation. Accordingly I pass the following Appeal is dismissed.