High Court Karnataka High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri G N Suresh S/O Nanjundappa on 17 October, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri G N Suresh S/O Nanjundappa on 17 October, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
IN THE', HIGH C()UR'I' op KARNATAKA AT BANGALOREST

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2£)(} £3  ~ _

BEFORE 'N
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSm:E"N;;z§IANQV;{V:V:' 'V
M.F.A.No.1098612055    %
BETWEEN: V'  

The Oficnta} Insurance C13." Lt.d..*"" -  
Gardcn Area, Shixnoga V ._   3. . V" ~ u "
By its Bangalore Regional 'Office  
Oriental Insurance Co.   V

Rsgional Gfiicf: V     _  ' 
No.44/45, Leo     
Residency R§c»'fad"'  " ,:  V"   .
Banga1ore--5€3Q (32193

Rep. by ,i.t3--~I")_e pq ':i';'!__23"1).z;>:g:er,:V' " Appeflant

(By Sr; P.B.;2aju, Aéimgatej

1.

'%~sr;'_G.N..Vsu_resfgT~.% 

S/o.'*--5E3'ri N afij.u1g&appa
Ageti about  years
Rfa: 'f:3.K':.§j~Iosur, Holehonnoor P101311

%  _  »31aadrs';vg+;11i Taiuk.

--  S,-'0. 'Sri Praveen Kama:

Aged; Major, Owner of Apsara Bus bearing No.

 : " "Km-16-A~8958, Ofiice near has stand
" Chamiagiii.

.. . Respondents

{By Szti V.P.Ku1kar11i, Advocate for R1; R2-Se1’vt:d)

However, this is subject to the condition that in

flilfi case {ha Workman establishes by acceptab3.§i»~.ai’i._

evidence that after the inquiry not only he ”

abie to do the work which he was pe1’fc*j::”fi3i1r1gViV: “-3

before the accident but he is $9: pable _rt<5'{:¥.o: "

other work, the 3033 of eariiiiig Capaéijé§i'Q(5:'§1id._bc.. i

assesstd on the basis of such évrigiéiice." . 2

In the case on hand, cla1'miiiii'iai'§i£ 1_1asiit2ai_l§A§Ci*ii:o iiigtabfish
that hf: is not abic to giiirsue ggainfuii aizocation.
Though ciaimant may not vehicle. thc

p0$Sfl)i]:Vi'i[y éuifi other gainful avocafion
cannot « ifuiegi ouii;' V V .,

_6,_ HaviiI1g_ircgéi1:1 "toijiecu1iar facts and cimumstanccs

"of case of disabiiiiifls as per evidence on

tigge opiniozi that assessment of permanent

vii:-3-3-vis lass of eaniing capacity at ?()"/6

iysrould 'ix? égéppropriate. The othcr aspficts are not in dispute.
A claimant Would. be entitltrd to compensation of
R.%;j.3,10,499/-, rounded off to Rs.3,10,5OG/-. The:

i Commissioner has awardeé interest at 12% per ammm from

the date of accident. The injuiibs suffered by claimant are

11011-schodzlie i;n}z1ries. Therefore, ciaimant is $nfit1¢V_::d,_'»Tto

interest at 12% per annum after one month fivmfiié' _

award.

7. In View of the above, I pass ihe :}j”oi1ow:ii1g:’~= V’ ‘

oRmE2_
The appeal is accepted in éawaxd is
modified. Co111pensatio11_fl’of R:;s;4j_f- awarded by

Commissioner forw_Work1n3n’$V. Com,pe:1;i’satio»11″‘i:-3 reduced to

Rs.3,1(),~SO”0,* ‘at’VVV–i§°A:» per annum from
29.10.2585″ the date of award) till the

date of paé§mé11t[ zfioposit; the i11sm:’a.11ce company has

‘_d€3§f_)’§L3.t€C1_ amouiit’ «i11___r;:Xcess of what has been awarded

_i1=’::1V”éin,j ~ shall be refunded to the insurance

of the award amount shall be transformd

j to “‘C§o:;.§J:nissio12sr for Workmen’s Compensation at

x V’ ‘::o~Shi§3og21v.NO1fice is directed to send back records along with a

–‘ of this order. 3
Sdf-em

3u&§9

SNN