✦ Karnataka High Court

MFA No. 6016 of 2018 · Karnataka High Court

MFA No. 6016 of 2018I ADDL SMALL CAUSES2 min read

Case at a glance

Bench
I ADDL SMALL CAUSES
Neutral citation
2024:KHC:33498

Outcome

Allowed

The appeal is allowed in part

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 66. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The appellants/claimants are held entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.7,93,240/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the incident, i.e., 05.09.2012, until realization. iii. The award…

Judgment

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 6016 OF 2018 (WC) BETWEEN:

1. SMT. NASIHA KHATTON, W/O LATE ASHRAF AJAD @ MOHAMED AJAD ALAM, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

2. MOHAMMED ZAYED, S/O. LATE ASHRAF AJAD @ MOHAMED AJAD ALAM, AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS,

3. BUSHRA PARVIN, S/O. LATE ASHRAF AJAD @ MOHAMED AJAD ALAM, AGED ABOUT 5 YEARS, SINCE, APPELLANTS NO.2 & 3 BEING MINORS, REPRESENTED BY NEXT BEST FRIEND, MOTHER APPELLANT NO.1 ALL ARE R/O NO.80, KALA NAGIN, MANSHURA, ANCHAL KOCHADHAMAN, KOCHADHAMAN, KISHANGANJ-DISTRICT, BIHAR STATE – 855 107. K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. RAVINDRANATH M., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND:

1.

B. L. KASHYAP & SONS LTD., PROJECT SITE-DIVYA SHREE TECHNO POLIS, 4TH FLOOR, WEST WING, SOULS SPACE PARADIGM, NEAR INNOVATIVE MULTIPLEX, MARATHALLI, - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:33498 MFA No. 6016 of 2018 BENGALURU – 560 037, REPRESENTED BY R.S. VIDYA SHANKAR.

2.

THE MANAGER, TATA AIG GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.69, JP & DEVI, JHAMBUKESHWARA ARKEDA, MILLAR ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 052. (BY SRI.B.PRADEEP, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R1 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 24.07.2024) …RESPONDENTS THIS MFA IS FILED U/S.30(1) OF WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 04.01.2019 PASSED ON ECA NO.390/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSES JUDGE, MACT, BENGALURU (SCCH- FOR 11), PARTLY ALLOWING COMPENSATION OF COMPENSTION. THE CLAIM PETITION ENHANCEMENT SEEKING AND THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 30(1) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 arises from the judgment and award dated 04.01.2018 passed by the I Addl. Small Causes Judge and MACT, Bengaluru, in ECA No.390/2014.

2. The appellants had filed a petition under Section 22 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923, seeking compensation on account of the death of the husband of appellant No.1, who died during the course of his employment with respondent No.1. - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:33498 MFA No. 6016 of 2018

3.

The Tribunal awarded compensation in the amount of Rs.7,93,240/- with interest at 8% per annum from the date of the petition until realization.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the records of the Trial Court.

5.

Although the Tribunal has awarded appropriate compensation, it has awarded interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of the petition, instead of the statutory rate of 12% per annum from the date of the incident/accident, i.e., 05.09.2012, as mandated under Section 4A(3)(a) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923.

Operative part

6.

Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal is allowed in part. ii. The appellants/claimants are held entitled to a compensation amount of Rs.7,93,240/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the incident, i.e., 05.09.2012, until realization. iii. The award of the Tribunal is modified to this extent. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed in part

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 — ss. 4A(3)(a), 22, 30(1).

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. MFA No. 6016 of 2018). ← Search more judgments