[Employee's Compensation Act] Bar On Commissioner's Power To Conduct Enquiry Imposed By 2010 Amendment Act Is Prospective: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said the amendment brought to Section 20 of the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923, notified on 23.01.2014, which bars the Commissioner from conducting an inquiry/proceedings on the claims under the Act and confers the powers to the concerned courts, is not applicable to a case decided prior to issuing of the notification. A single judge bench of Justice HP Sandesh rejected the appeal filed by the Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd, questioning the judgment and award dated 19.08.2013, passed by Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen Davanagere District, questioning the quantum and liability of the compensation awarded to the claimant. The primary contention of the insurance company was that the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition in view of the amendment brought into the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923 as amended by Act 45 of 2009 which came into force with effect from 18.01.2010 and in view of Section 20 of the said Act in particular. Findings: On going through the records the bench said, "Though the Act was amended (in 2010), the notification was issued by the Government only on 23.01.2014 conferring powers to the concerned Courts to deal with the claims made under the Employee's Compensation Act, in view of Section 20 of the Act. In the case on hand, the judgment and award was passed on 19.08.2013 and the notification was issued on 23.01.2014 i.e., subsequent to the disposal of the case. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that the Commissioner was not having jurisdiction cannot be accepted." The court rejected the argument of the company that amputation of his one hand was done on account of the claimants on negligence. The bench noted that the claimant has taken treatment immediately after the accident at Government Hospital, Ramanagara and KLE Hospital and in the cross-examination also, he denies the suggestion that there was negligence on the part of the Doctors at KLE Hospital and when he was under continuous treatment. It then said, "The very contention of the Insurance Company that due to the negligence on the part of the claimant himself, it has resulted in gangrene cannot be accepted. Though gangrene was developed, the same was on account of accidental injuries he had sustained and amputation was done within 1 month, 5 days of the accidental injuries. Hence, the very contention that amputation was done on account of his own negligence cannot be accepted and if the claimant has not taken treatment immediately after the accident, then, there would have been force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company." The bench accordingly dismissed the appeal filed by the insurance company and allowed the appeal filed by the claimant in part. It said, "The Judgment and Award of the Tribunal dated 19.08.2013, is modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.11,02,609/- as against Rs.5,09,473/- awarded by the Commissioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum after 30 days of the accident till its realisation." Case Title: Hanumanthappa v. The Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd & others. Case No: M.F.A. NO.1234/2014 (WC) C/W. M.F.A. NO.2414/2014 (WC) Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 502 Date Of Order: 2nd day of December, 2022 Appearance: V B Siddaramaiah, Advocate for appellant; O.Mahesh, Advocate for R1. Click Here To Read/Download Order

[Employee's Compensation Act] Bar On Commissioner's Power To Conduct Enquiry Imposed By 2010 Amendment Act Is Prospective: Karnataka HC

Mustafa Plumber

Tags