The Divisional Manager vs Smt Mahadevamma on 4 November, 2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 04:!» DAY OF NOVEMBERTZMQE: .

PRESENT

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE  

THE HON'BLE   
MISCELLANEOUS ,.-F.IRSTTzfl':P_EALe. No.fl52e7'/£2007

BETWEEN:

The Divisional Managcgr ,   ~ :
The Oriental E__i1sL_§;r'ance Tcjompany V Linfited,
Saraswath1p"ura:iT~-,v-*Mys'oV:=e."~~. __   
Through its .,Regi:;na1' orfice .. " ' 
No.44--45;~eeI,e0'T.ShVCé; ping» Comp' ex,'

Residency Road. Qr'ess;,  _ _'

Banga1ore=56o    T ET

By Its Regmnal Managef   " ...APPELLANT

V (By "S:;'ri."';:'5T;.S.Ur;i'e'~s.=V.,fT?v Ada}

' #-

..:o"  '

 .. _ 
"(/0 late "fifiallu,
Aged "a}3out 26 years,

." Kumexi" Manukurnar,

  vs,/%_c; late Mallu,

'Aged about 11 years,

"  " Kumar Ravi Kumar.

S/0 late Mallu,
Aged about 9 years,



Mysore, dated 13.12.2006 in WCA/CR-15/2006/~-EC is

called in question in this appeal by the

Company.

2. The appe1lant--Ins1:xran_eey. 3   

questioning the quantum of-compensation';'awarded by

the Commissioner and not:"it,s -Iiabilityn '1_'lne only
question raised by th'e...V:app'elliéinVt" us is whether
the income of the deceasved'itak;en'   Commissioner

at the rate of «-_ per rrionth isexcessive or not'?

  thatwllthe deceased Mallu was
working'-as-at loadei'._'larI.:cl'~t1n--loader in a tractorwtrailer

bearing registijation N'o.vK;A--10 'T-555 8.: 556, which was

 by the respondent No.6 in this appeal. Mallu

iion:y;’2s.r4oe 2L~3o6 while discharging his duties as a

loader a.ri.r’1:1′..iih~«loader under the 613* respondent on

‘acpcount-oi’ rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

The deceased Mailu was aged about 30 years at

time of accident and according to the claimants, he

dwas getting a salary of Rs/L000/– per month and in

addition to that, he was also getting a sum of Rs.50/– as

H5/_

batta. The income of the deceased was denied by the

appellant–Insurance Company.

4». The Commissioner considering tli-e.-efvidene-e left ”= V

in by the parties came to the conclu_.,ailo3nl4’th.at aft

a loader and un–loader who»’is.___a cooiie” on the é:ia.teHoi3′ the -. V ‘

accident could not be less month
and accordingly, he of Rs.4, 15,960/~
with interest at,_lV2% of accident tiil
the date is called on

question in this ti.ppea:l;’~ ”

of the appellant’s Counsel

is that thel”inco»mie Ca’ loader and un–loader in the

“V”«-.tractor sonthe Cdate’ of the accident could not be

fierivlrgfionth and therefore, the Commissioner

has ._con1mitt.ed an error in awarding the above said

‘compensation. He also contends that awarding interest

‘thejlrate of 12% p.a. is contrary to the judgment of the

Court rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance

«co. Ltd., vs. Mohd.Nasir & others (2009 AIR sew 371 7).

«(L

~52.

In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allvow the

appeal.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the »respondents ”

submits that both the gronnd..s4elA.fj.a1-5..

According to him, the income’ of aflloader as on

the date of accident could lessllthan’V’l32sl;?.OO–250
per day and since tinder the
Gun respondent on a per
month and Commissioner
has “»Rsl4,000/- as income
per molath, that awarding interest is

also in ac-<:ordan'c_el"the W.C.Act. Therefore, he

requeeistls the Cou.rttoAdismiss the appeal.

heard the learned Counsel for the

to consider the following points in this

_. ' « _ uapxpeal; " – Cl'

C * Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Commissioner is on
the higher side'?

WL”

(ii) ‘Whether the interest awarded by the.__
Commissioner is also on the

side?

8. So far as the first point

see any reason to interfere with the order passed: the

Commissioner, since the has
been fixed at Rs. 130/ {per the Corrirriissioner
has taken the income o_f_~ per
month, the on higher side.

In the has to be held

aga1’ns:f§;l the . , _.

9. far second point is concerned,

awa_ré!.ing’ iritere’s’t=at..~l2% p.a. by the Commissioner is

held -to ‘bC’EXC:CS’SiV€. Following the judgment of the Apex

Courtl lipon by the learned Counsel for the

‘v,appellant’,t. we have to reduce the interest awarded by

A “:ti1eVCemrr1issioner. Accordingly, we have to allow this

..__”V””apV’h11_:)eal in part.

10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.

The quantum of compensation awarded by the

$9