Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Sri Abdul Khadar v. Sri Vincent Kutinho

Sri Abdul Khadar v. Sri Vincent Kutinho

(High Court Of Karnataka)

M.F.A.NO.10948/2013 (WC) | 09-12-2022

1. Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the learned counsel, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 05.09.2012 passed in W.C.No.KAAPAKAA/F/SR-22-2011 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Hassan Sub-division, Hassan (‘the Commissioner’ for short) questioning the quantum of compensation.

3. It is the claim of the claimants that the deceased was working as a Loader and he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. Apart from that, it is their claim that the deceased was earning Rs.100/- per day as baata and the Commissioner, while deciding the quantum of compensation, has taken the income of Rs.6,000/- as pleaded. Now, the learned counsel for the claimants would contend that, in view of the amendment, the wage would be Rs.8,000/- per month and the same has to be considered.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the claimants themselves have pleaded the income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/- per month and baata which has been claimed by them cannot be a part of his income. Hence, the Commissioner has not committed any error.

5. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, the Commissioner by taking the income of Rs.6,000/- per month, assessed the quantum of compensation and not considered the baata. The claim itself is that he was getting salary of Rs.6,000/- per month. When the deceased was working as a loader, the question of considering baata does not arise and baata cannot be a part of income as contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and there is no dispute with regard to the factors taken by the Commissioner and also deduction of 50% out of the total income as per the and the Commissioner has also awarded interest at 12% after 30 days of the accident. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Commissioner for enhancement of compensation and no grounds are made out to enhance the compensation.

6. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The appeal is dismissed.

Advocate List

  • SRI RAGHU R.,  SRI D.P. ASHOK.

  • SRI A. RAVISHANKAR.

Bench
  • HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
Eq Citations
  • LQ
  • LQ/KarHC/2022/5626
Head Note

A. Labour Law — Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 — S. 4 — Compensation — Quantum of — Deceased working as a loader — Commissioner assessing quantum of compensation by taking income of Rs.6,000/- per month and not considering baata — Held, when deceased was working as a loader, question of considering baata does not arise and baata cannot be a part of income — Hence, no error committed by Commissioner for enhancement of compensation and no grounds are made out to enhance compensation — Compensation Act, 1923 — S. 4 — BAATA — Held, cannot be a part of income — Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 — S. 4 — Compensation — Commissioner by taking income of Rs.6,000/- per month, assessed quantum of compensation and not considering baata — Held, when deceased was working as a loader, question of considering baata does not arise and baata cannot be a part of income — Hence, no error committed by Commissioner for enhancement of compensation and no grounds are made out to enhance compensation — Compensation Act, 1923 — S. 4 — Labour and Industrial Laws — Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 — S. 4 — Compensation — Commissioner by taking income of Rs.6,000/- per month, assessed quantum of compensation and not considering baata — Held, when deceased was working as a loader, question of considering baata does not arise and baata cannot be a part of income — Hence, no error committed by Commissioner for enhancement of compensation and no grounds are made out to enhance compensation — Compensation Act, 1923 — S. 4 — Compensation — Commissioner by taking income of Rs.6,000/- per month, assessed quantum of compensation and not considering baata — Held, when deceased was working as a loader, question of considering baata does not arise and baata cannot be a part of income — Hence, no error committed by Commissioner for enhancement of compensation and no grounds are made out to enhance compensation — Compensation Act, 1923 — S. 4 —