High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Shaik Moula @ Makbool S/O Sri … vs Sri Raziaya Bee on 23 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri Shaik Moula @ Makbool S/O Sri … vs Sri Raziaya Bee on 23 August, 2010
Author: K.L.Manjunath And B.Manohar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23*") DAY OF AUGUST 2010
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNA:TH.:T'   O" O
AND  
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICEOB.  'VA on     
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APVp£;A;,1%No.A5826/26VQ6'5{wc3 

BETWEEN V' O "
Sri Shajk Moula @ Makbpol,
S/0 Sri Shaik Huseen,     _  - 
Age: 56 Years, Occ: Nil,  , .     _  
R/0Kammanaha11?:.''' '' V «. . V"   .
Kugoor Post,  C__ ;_ _  ¢
Sarjapura Hoblip»  ':;:_   '

Aneka1Ta1uk,i_ _  H  .4  .
Bangaiore Rural District.-~ O   --- ' ' Appellant

{By Srnt. sun:th"'1~3_'H, ,A&v,",}?;r- SQ-resh M Latur, AdV.,
for appellgmtl "   

A1315"

1. 5;-;ga;i9;yaOa¢ei%%  

 ,_Age: Majoné'
 Ucc: Busi:.j.ess,v. . O _
 OR/o No.99," 3:6 street,
" ~Bfu~1'_ia1 Compbufld, Main Road Cross.
.1 --.BanIga1or*e. District.

V. O ' V ..  .'Ihé'-Ijixfiéional Manager,
"United Eindia Insurance Co. Ltd.,

D0or"N'0.VI, N0.89/ 1, 2"' Floor,

 '1.1F.*'»' Cross, Sampige Road,

W



Malleshwaram,
Bangalore~560 O03. Respondents

{By Sri A Ravishankar, Adv., for R2)
{R~1: notice dispensed with}

i…

This Miscellaneous First Appeal is file-d”under*l_<l l.}{Al of .
the Motor Vehicles Act, against the order gdattfidp }13–._9.'2_'()'05=.pvasse.dfin
WCA/NFC/CR.18/2005 on the file of Labouifpofficer and Comnt1.i'ssic–ner

for Workmen's Compensation, Sub«Division–6;,_vBanga1oi*e. allowing the

claim petition for compensation and see-king enhanceriient "of
compensation with 12% interest.

This Appeal coming Ordlerpsi the ll\/Ianjunath, J .,
delivered the followingi =

The appvell*anlttl seeking enhancement of
compensationlfamrardedlf:-~ pl Commissioner for Workmen’s
Compensation, ” No.WCA/NFC/CR.18/2005 dated

21 the claim petition claiming compensation

lion account Qyihélltdisabflity caused to him in a road traffic accident,

.1 occurred at about 3.301 p.m on 20″! of March 2005 while

°-llxdisclialrgingl his duties as a driver of autorikshaw bearing registration

‘ No~«.:K§AlO4~8663 at Frazer town–Queens road«~Thim.maiah road junction.

3r

The claimant was aged about 55 years. According to him, he was

getting salary of Rs.6,000/ — per month.

i

3. The owner of the vehicle contended that he only’

Rs.3,000/– per month and Rs.50/– as battamlper. j

been examined to show the nature of injury
disability. The claimant has sustained fr.actut’eJ “of ‘clavicle.
According to the Doctor, the c1aizrgnant.icannot”‘lift heavyweights and he

assessed the disabitity at 20%. it C

4. The of the ckaimant at
Rs.4,500/– disability, has awarded
compensationlof 1 interest per annum. Being not
satisfied with thelabove theipresent Appeal is filed.

5.;lW.e hVa’v.e*h.eard the learned Counsel appearing for both the

it» contended by the appellant’s Counsel that the disability

‘A’-llfconsidleredwby the Commissioner is contrary to the evidence available

. ‘ ~.__on–«r:ecord. Therefore, he requested the Court to enhance compensation.

6/..

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company contends that the compensation awarded fiby the

Commissioner itseif is on the higher side, since the claimant-ch-asvvrjnot

1

been disabled to drive the autorikshaw as a driver oneaccount”c-fltheé

injuries sustained by him in the accident. «reqlueste:dl:.th_e Court to r.

dismiss the Appeal.

8. Having heard the Counsel forfthe partie-s.g_llAth:e only question
that arises for our considerationlir. this A

Whether.–::the j_ awarded by the

Commissioner isfjrequiredj to be interferellwitlri ?

9. by the claimant is a
fracture of left clavicle.’ is led in to show that left clavicle is
not united and as alliesjulthvlof he is unable to drive the vehicle and
hasjgdeposed ‘is that on account of the said injury, he is

unable fwe_j1…ghts. Admittedly, fracture is caused to the left

lv.__AA’cl’avicle. A claimant is an autorikshaw driver. Under such

” “l.circulmstancesV,_Athe question of lifting heavy weights from his left hand

As it is not the case of the claimant that he cannot drive

7tl’ie. vehicle on account of the injury, We do not see any reasons to

interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the Commissioner.

71/

Bjs

10. In the resuit, the Appeai is dismissed.

The parties to bear their own costs.

% '      {    R      

   JUDGE