AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.R. Kumaraswamy
M.F.A. Nos. 31121/2012, 31122/2012, 31123/2012, 31124/2012, 31125/2012, 31126/2012, 31127/2012, 31128/2012, 31129/2010, 31130/2012, 31131/2012 and 31132/2012 are filed by the Insurance Company seeking for reduction of compensation amount. The learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter may be disposed of on merits, since the Insurance Company has admitted the liability and only the quantum of compensation is challenged. The materials placed on record is sufficient to dispose off the matter at this stage. Section 30(1) of Workmen Compensation Act states no appeal shall lie against an order, unless a substantial question of law involved. Said proviso has been incorporated into the section with the object that the workers shall not be dragged into unending litigation. In the present cases both learned counsel for appellant as well as learned counsel for respondents submitted that except the point pertaining to assessment of disability no other point is involved. They also submit that with an intention to end the unending litigation these matters may be disposed off at the stage of admission.
These Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed u/s 30(1) of W.C. Act against the judgments and orders dated 07.02.2012 passed in WC/CR/ No. 161/2008 to 166/2008 and WC/CR/ No. 167/2008 to 172/2008 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Raichur, Dist. Raichur, partly allowing the claim petitions and awarding the compensation to the respective claimants.
The parties will be referred with reference to the status in the court of the Labour Officer & Commissioner for Workmen Compensation.
The case of the claimants in the Court below is as under:
Claimant Ghouse Basha was driver, claimant Kumarappa was cleaner, claimant Ramu loader, claimant Hanmanth loader, claimant Basha loader and claimant Shanu loader were travelling in the lorry bearing No. KA-34/2246. Claimant Mohd. Basha was driver, claimant Ramesh was cleaner, claimant Veerappa loader, claimant Goolappa loader, claimant Shivanna loader and claimant Kariappa loader were travelling in the lorry bearing No. KA-34/475. Respondent No. 1 was the owner of the offending lorries and Respondent No. 2 was the Insurer in the Court below.
Claimants were travelling in the lorry bearing No. KA-32/2246 and lorry bearing No. KA-34/475 and both the vehicles met with accident and claimants who were travelling in both the lorries have sustained grievous injuries. Rampur police have registered a case in Cr. No. 04/2008.
In the Court below both the Respondent No. 1 owners of respective lorries have filed objections statement stating that they are the owners of respective lorries and the claimants were driver, cleaner and loaders and they were employed with them. Driver was paid salary of Rs. 4,000/ - per month, cleaner was paid salary of Rs. 3,500/-, per month and loaders were paid Rs. 100/- per day.
In the Court below the claimants travelling in the lorry bearing No. KA-34/2246 have produced Ex. P-1 FIR, Ex. P-1(a) Further statement of complainant, Ex. P-2 charge-sheet, Ex. P-3 spot panchanama, Ex. P-3(a) IMV report, Ex. P-4 and P-5 wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Gouse Basha, Ex. P-6 driving licence, Ex. P-7 R.C. book, Ex. P-8 goods permit, Ex. P-9 Insurance policy, Ex. P-10 and P-11 wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Kumarappa, Ex. P-12 and P-13 wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Ramu, Ex. P-14 and P-15 wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Hanumanth, Ex. P-16 and P-17 are the wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Basha, Ex. P-18 and P-19 are the wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Shanu.
In the Court below the claimants travelling in the lorry-bearing No. KA-34/475 have produced Ex. P-1 FIR, Ex. P-2 charge-sheet, Ex. P-3 IMV report, Ex. P-3(a) Spot panchanama, Ex. P-4 and P-5 wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Mohd. Basha, Ex. P-6 R.C. book, Ex. P-7 Driving licence, Ex. P-8 Insurance policy, Ex. P-9 and P-10 are wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Ramesh, Ex. P-11 and P-12 are wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Veerappa, Ex. P-13 and P-14 are wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Goolappa, Ex. P-15 and P-16 are the wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Shivanna, Ex. P-17 and P-18 are the wound certificate and disability certificate of claimant Kariappa.
Claimant Gouse Basha in W.C. No. 161/2008 has sustained fracture of right colles and fracture of lateral 3rd right clavicle region, resulting deformed right forearm and wrist. Movements are restricted and painful and thereby hindrance to carry out his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 40% disability.
Claimant Kumarappa in W.C. No. 162/2008 has sustained fracture of shaft of right radius and ulna bone, resulting malunion and deformed right forearm with wasting of muscles due to which the movements are restricted and painful and thereby hindrance to carry out his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 35% disability.
Claimant Ramu in W.C. No. 163/2008 has sustained fracture of left patella and tibia bone by its upper 3rd, resulting malunion and deformed knee with painful and restricted movements and thereby hindrance to carry out his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 40% disability.
Claimant Hanmanthappa in W.C. No. 164/2008 has sustained fracture of right head of humerus bone with gleno humeral joint displacement, resulting malunion and deformed shoulder with wasting of the muscles due to which the movements of shoulder are restricted and painful and thereby hindrance to carry out his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 45% disability.
Claimant Basha in W.C. No. 165/2008 has sustained fracture of right clavicle resulting malunion and deformed anterior shoulder with painful and restricted movements thereby affecting his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 45% disability.
Claimant Shanu in W.C. No. 166/2008 has sustained fracture of left lower end of femur bone resulting malunion and deformed left knee with gross wastings of the muscles due to which the movements of the knee are restricted and painful, thereby affecting his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 45% disability.
Claimant Mohd. Basha in W.C. No. 167/2008 has sustained fracture of 11th and 12th ribs antero interally on right side and fracture of right colles resulting dining foek deformity of forearm with wasting of muscles due to which movements are restricted and painful and thereby affecting his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 40% disability.
Claimant Ramesh in W.C. No. 168/2008 has sustained fracture of right patella resulting movements of knee are restricted and painful thereby affecting his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 45% disability.
Claimant Veerappa in W.C. No. 169/2008 has sustained fracture of lateral condyle of left humerus bone due to which the movements of elbow are restricted and painful and thereby affecting his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 45% disability.
Claimant Goolappa in W.C. No. 170/2008 has sustained fracture of lower 3rd of left tibia due to which he finds difficult to stand, bear and transmit weights thereby affecting his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 40% disability.
Claimant Shivanna in W.C. No. 171/2008 has sustained fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th metacarpal bones due to which the movements of hands are restricted and painful and thereby affecting his physical activities and that of his profession and he has sustained 30% disability.
Claimant Karippa in W.C. No. 172/2008 has sustained compression fracture of L-1 and L-2 and due to which his physical activities are impaired thereby affecting his profession and he has sustained 45% disability.
The learned Commissioner has assessed the age of the claimants in W.C. Nos. 161/2008 to 166/2008 as 33, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 20 years and age of the claimants in W.C. Nos. 167/2008 to 172/2008 as 32, 24, 20, 23, 25 and. 24 years.
The learned Commissioner has assessed the income of driver at Rs. 4,000/- per month, Rs. 3,500/- per month for cleaner and Rs. 100/- per day for loaders and awarded compensation as under;
(1) Claimant Gouse Basha (WC No. 161/2008) Rs. 4,000 x 60% x 186.90 (Relevant factor) x 40% (disability) = Rs. 1,79,424/-
(2) Claimant Kumarappa (WC No. 162/2008) Rs. 3,500 x 60% x 225.22 (Relevant factor) x 35% (disability) = Rs. 1,65,536/-
(3) Claimant Ramu (WC No. 163/2008)
Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 224.00 (Relevant factor) x 40% (disability) = Rs. 1,61,280/-
(4) Claimant Hanumanth (WC No. 164/2008) Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 222.71 (Relevant factor) x 45% disability) = Rs. 1,80,395/-
(5) Claimant Bhasha (WC No. 165/2008) Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 216.91 (Relevant factor) x 45% (disability) = Rs. 1,75,697/-
(6) Claimant Shanu (WC No. 166/2008) Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 224.00 (Relevant factor) x 45% (disability) = Rs. 1,81,440/-
(7) Claimant Mohd. Basha (WC No. 167/2008) Rs. 4,000 x 60% x 203.85 (Relevant factor) x 40% (disability) = Rs. 1,95,696/-
(8) Claimant Ramesh (WC No. 168/2008) Rs. 3,500 x 60% x 224.00 (Relevant factor) x 45% (disability) = Rs. 2,11,680/-
(9) Claimant Veerappa (WC No. 169/2008) Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 224.00 (Relevant factor) x 45%,
(disability) = Rs. 1,81,440/-
(10) Claimant Goolappa (WC No. 170/2008) Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 222.71 (Relevant factor) x 40% (disability) = Rs. 1,60,351/-
(11) Claimant Shivanna (WC No. 171/2008) Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 186.90 (Relevant factor) x 30% (disability) = Rs. 1,20,263/-
(12) Claimant Kariappa (WC No. 172/2008) Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 221.37 (Relevant factor) x 45% (disability) = Rs. 1,79,309/-
Feeling aggrieved by the same the appellant Insurance Company has preferred these appeals seeking reduction of compensation and also interest.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that X-rays have not been produced and the doctor who has examined the claimants has not examined and there is exaggeration in the assessment of disability by the doctor. He further submits that normally if the disability of a particular limb is 40%, then the whole body disability is assessed at 1/3rd of it. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disability assessed by the medical practitioner is on the higher side.
I carefully examined the trial court judgments. Though it appears that there is some exaggeration in assessing the disability, however, taking into consideration of the nature of the occupation and also the nature of injuries sustained by the respective claimants, in my view the following disability can be assessed.
(1) Claimant Gouse Basha (WC No. 161/2008) at
(2) Claimant Kumarappa (WC No. 162/2008) at 25%
(3) Claimant Ramu (WC No. 163/2008) at, 30%
(4) Claimant Hanumanth (WC No. 164/2008) at 35%
(5) Claimant Bhasha, (WC No. 165/2008) at 35%
(6) Claimant Shanu (WC No. 166/2008) at 35%
(7) Claimant Mohd. Basha (WC No. 167/2008) at 30%
(8) Claimant Ramesh (WC No. 168/2008) at 35%
(9) Claimant Veerappa (WC No. 169/2008) at 35%
(10) Claimant Goolappa (WC No. 170/2008) at 30%
(11) Claimant Shivanna (WC No. 171/2008) at 30%
(12) Claimant Kariappa (WC No. 172/2008) at 35%
If the percentage of disability is reduced in the above terms, then the compensation is to be awarded to the respective claimants are as under;
(1) Claimant Gouse Basha (WC No. 161/2008) at 30%
Rs. 4,000 x 60% x 186.90 (Relevant factor) x 30% (disability) = Rs. 1,34,568/-
(2) Claimant Kumarappa (WC No. 162/2008) at 25%
Rs. 3,500 x 60% x 225.22 (Relevant factor) x 25% (disability) = Rs. 1,18,240/-
(3) Claimant Ramu (WC No. 163/2008) at 30% Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 224.00(Relevant factor) x 30% (disability) = Rs. 1,20,960/-
(4) Claimant Hanumanth (WC No. 164/2008) at 35%
Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 222.71 (Relevant factor) x 35% (disability) = Rs. 1,40,307/-
(5) Claimant Bhasha (WC No. 165/2008) at 35% Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 216.91 (Relevant factor) x 35% (disability) = Rs. 1,36,653/-
(6) Claimant Shanu (WC No. 166/2008) at 35% Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 224.00 (Relevant factor) x 35% (disability) = Rs. 1,41,120/-
(7) Claimant Mohd. Basha (WC No 167/2008) at 30%
Rs. 4,000 x 60% x 203.85 (Relevant factor) x 30% (disability) = Rs. 1,46,772/-
(8) Claimant Ramesh (WC No. 168/2008) at 35% Rs. 3,500 x 60%) x 224.00 (Relevant factor) x 35% (disability) = Rs. 1,64,640/-
(9) Claimant Veerappa (WC No. 169/2008) at 35% Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 224.00 (Relevant factor) x 35% (disability) = Rs. 1,41,120/-
(10) Claimant Goolappa (WC No. 170/2008) at 30% Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 222.71 (Relevant factor) x 30% (disability) = Rs. 1,20,263/-
(11) Claimant Shivanna (WC No. 171/2008) at 30%
Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 186.90 (Relevant factor) x 30% (disability) = Rs. 1,20,263/-
(12) Claimant Kariappa (WC No. 172/2008) at 35% Rs. 3,000 x 60% x 221.37 (Relevant factor) x 35% (disability) = Rs. 1,39,463/-
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the interest has to be awarded 30 days from the date of order. Whereas the learned counsel for the respective respondents relies on the ruling of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Suresh Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, , wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court at para 5 held that interest @ 12% per annum thereon from one month after the date of accident till the date of payment was also awarded.
Applying the principles of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above mentioned judgment, in my view the interest has to be awarded from 30 days after the date of accident till the date of payment. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
M.F.A. Nos. 31121/2012, 31122/2012, 31123/2012, 31124/2012, 31125/2012, 31126/2012, 31127/2012, 31128/2012, 31129/2010, 31130/2012, and 31132/2012, are allowed in part.
M.F.A. No. 31131/2012 is disposed off by confirming the judgment and order in W.C. No. 171/2008 on the file of learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Raichur.
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,79,424/- as awarded by the Court below in W.C. No. 161/2008 is reduced to Rs. 1,34,568/-.
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,65,536/- as awarded by the Court below in W.C. No. 162/2008 is reduced to Rs. 1,18,240/-.
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,61,280/- as awarded by the Court below in W.C. No. 163/2008 is reduced to Rs. 1,20,960/-.
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,80,395/- as awarded by Court below in W.C. No. 164/2008 is reduced to 1,40,307/-.
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,75,697/- as awarded by the Court below in W.C. No. 165/2012 is reduced to Rs. 1,36,653/-.
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,81,440/- as awarded by the Court below in W.C. No. 166/2008 is reduced to Rs. 1,41,120/-.
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,95,696/- as awarded by the Court below in W.C. No. 167/2012 is reduced to Rs. 1,46,772/-.
Compensation amount of Rs. 2,11,680/- as awarded by Court below in W.C. No. 168/2008 is reduced to Rs. 1,64,640/-.
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,81,440/- as awarded by the Court below in W.C. No. 169/2008 is reduced to Rs. 1,41,120/-.
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,60,351/- as awarded by Court below in W.C. No. 170/2012 is reduced to Rs. 1,20,263/-
Compensation amount of Rs. 1,79,309/- as awarded by Court below in W.C. No. 172/2008 is reduced to Rs. 1,39,463/-.
Claimants are entitled for interest at 12% from 30 days after the date of accident.
Rest of the judgment is accepted.
Balance amount if any shall be returned to the Insurance Company.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation for disbursement to the claimants within four weeks.