S NINGAPPA W/O SANNAPPA, & ORS. vs GIRISH H E S/O H B ERAPPA, & ANR.

Appellants are the claimants. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and order dated 31.1.2012 made in KaaADaa/KaaNaPa/CR-134/2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Davanagere, (for short `Commissioner for Workmen Compensation'') they have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

Appellants are the parents and brother of deceased Harish. They filed a claim petition contending that the deceased was working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-17/A-4446 belonged to the 1st respondent. On 12.2.2010, as per the instructions of owner of vehicle, while loading the quarry stones to the lorry, the driver was negligent in taking the vehicle in reverse direction and dashed against the deceased Harish. Due to that, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to C G Hospital, Davangere and thereafter SSIMS Hospital. Subsequently, he succumbed to the said injuries. The parents and brother of the deceased Harish filed a claim petition contending that at the time of death, he was aged about 20 years and getting salary of Rs.6,000/- per month and batta of Rs.150/- per day. In view of the death of the deceased, the family has lost the bread earner. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment. The said lorry was insured with the 2nd respondent. Hence, both the respondents are liable to compensate the claimants.

In response to the notice issued by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, the owner of the vehicle entered appearance and filed written statement admitting that the deceased was working as a cleaner in the lorry and he died in the road traffic accident occurred on 12.2.2010.

The Insurance Company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also disputed the relationship of master and servant between the owner of the vehicle and the deceased. Further, it was contended that no document was produced to show that due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the deceased died. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation framed necessary issues.

After trial, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation held that the deceased was working as a cleaner in the offending lorry. While loading the quarry stones, due to negligence on the part of driver of the said lorry, it dashed against the deceased and he died. The accident occurred during the course and out of employment. The claimants are the parents and brother of the deceased and are entitled for compensation.

With regard to quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was getting salary of Rs.6,000/- per month, the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation taking into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.2,939/- and applying the relevant factor 224.00 awarded compensation of Rs.3,29,280/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of passing of the order. The claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation have preferred this appeal.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by Sri H K Siddeswara, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants and Sri D S Sridhar, learned Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, perused the judgment and order and oral and documentary evidence.

The dispute in this appeal is only with regard to quantum of compensation.

The main contention of the appellants is that though the accident occurred in the year 2010, the Tribunal has taken the income of the deceased as Rs.2,939/-, which is contrary to law. The deceased was a cleaner in the heavy lorry. He was earning more than Rs.3,500/- per month. The income of Rs.2,939/- per month taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Further, the rate of interest awarded from the date of judgment and order is contrary to law. As per the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. -vs- Siby George and ors. reported in 2012 ACJ 2126, the claimants are entitled for interest from one month after the accident. Therefore, I am of the view that the income of Rs.2,939/- taken by the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation is on the lower side. Taking the income of the deceased as Rs.3,500/- per month and taking 50% thereof as he was aged about 20 years applying the relevant factor 224.00, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- as against Rs.3,29,280/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above, the claimants are entitled for interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from one month after the accident. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

Appeal is allowed in part. The judgment and order dated 31.1.2012 made in KaaADaa/KaaNaPa/CR- 134/2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Davanagere, is modified. The claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,92,000/- as against Rs.3,29,280/- with interest at 12% p.a. from one month after the accident.