AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Though these matters are posted for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing on both sides, they are heard finally.
2, MFA. Nos. 4604/2006, 4605/2006, 4607/2003 and 4608/2008 are filed by the claimants, seeking enhancement of compensation, while MFA. Nos. 2646/2006, 2648/2006, 2649/2006 and 2650/2006 are filed by the Insurance Company, contending that it is not liable to satisfy the award. Since these appeals are directed against the common judgment and award dated 13/12/2005 passed by the Commissioner for Workmen''s Compensation at Davanagere, they have been clubbed together and have been disposed of by this common judgment.
The appeals filed by the Insurance Company are with regard to the liability of the company to satisfy the awards. The contention of the Insurance Company is that the respondent - claimants being coolies of the tractor and trailor in question, their risk is not covered under the policy as it is a Kissan Package Policy.
Learned counsel for the appellant - Insurance Company has however fairly submitted that the said issue would not now arise in these appeals, In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MFA. No. 6556/2006 and connected matters, in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Sri Maruthi & others disposed of on 27/12/2010. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant - insurance Company is placed on record.
Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeals, I.A.IV/2006 filed for stay, would not survive for consideration. The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the office of the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner at Davanagere.
As far as the appeals filed by the claimants are concerned, the only contention is with regard to the quantum of compensation. The claimants have stated that the Workmen''s Compensation Commissioner was not right in assessing the notional income of the claimants at Rs.3,000/- p.m. by ignoring the fact that they were also receiving Rs.50/- per day as bata apart from salary. Therefore, counsel for the claimants has submitted that the compensation has to be enhanced.
Having regard to the fact that the accident has occurred on 19/10/2004 and the fact that in the absence of there being corroborative evidence, the Commissioner has assessed the notional income at Rs.3,000/- p.m I do not think that the said assessment is either arbitrary or perverse. Therefore, the awards on the quantum of compensation would also not call for any interference in these appeals. Therefore, the appeals filed by the claimants are also dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.