--_;.. 1,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 20TH BAY or SEPTEMBER. u
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MILJUSTICE
AND
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'l'ICE'S,N.$AT1'_ANAT§;*§C'i?A1§A
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEEEL-1:\I0,V8312«. 2CI%06 (WC)
BETWEEN :
E)ivisi()I1a1Man3.ger,,_ '
National I11s11r21I1Q,<3«'C_c)--;_ L1Eti'1., _. I
Divisioxxaj (.)ffiCc, 654", _. . , '
Sathi Compiexi.' 'I'I{_():a;d.j,:-.. _ V_
BANGALORE E--* E
New reptdgby-.iLs. '
Regi0r1a1()ffiCe;- V
Nati.0n.a_1 II1s1,1"1"3,_It'C{: CQ. 'IA(»}..,t"_;~
Region 2:} _ O,ffic(i~,, ' E'31_,il)h.21:r211°n
4(1g)mp1ex,3 144, M.(3r';=Road,A.
APPELLANT.
Swamy, Adv.)
VANIH)-;-- A h * '
1,, Kéi-s11iii1i§;21"rn,
' V S / 0 *~I"{aII1aswa,11;y,
AA Majp1,1swaI11y Ii)cva..r.
Aggie: Me.1j()1', # "I "I70/43,
as/E
Dr. Raj k'e_1r11zz:r Road,
}_'mk21s1'1nag21r, ._
BANGALORE. RESPONBENTS.
(By Sri.Su.r(:s}1 M.Lz3.tur,
Adv. for 1"-{~ 1,
Rcspmldexxt No.2 - N0t.i(:c
disp<:.nse(.i with)
*m=I=#=1=M¢#=!=#*_*
T1115 ap'p€a,i is filed um"-,§_§tr S(:§:fi.r)r1 oifii
Wor'kmcn's (3ompeI1sat.i0n thé} ()f(:i:erH dated
O2.()5.2(){)6 passed in wcA,(V_1"3--2,INF(:/{iR;_11./"20V06-fin the me
of the Labour ()fficer _f0r Workrnt-:n's
Compt-:.r1sat.'10n, S'ub--I)ivi:;i.Q:n--'2,_<__ Bhavan.
Banm:'rghatta éiw*:ar%iing compensation
of Rs.4,o6,656=;/ § =p.a., from 0m2.2004
till the date the appeilant herein to
deposit tht%,sa3.nt:. V' "
This app.ea1Vcof£'1i'ng~*»L' on for Orders this day,
}g,L.MA_n{JUrIATH; "J..',__<ie«1i.vcrd the ronowmg:
JUDGMENT
” ._N{:)t.i(ié; ‘r§t’:_-3i>0r1(1e1’1i. No.2 is dispensed with, sincte
r(–:sp01″1(‘i£31’1.1.”– N0’;2 is p.1a(:<td expartc bf'§f()I'€ the C()In1nEssioI1ez'.
'AW'-£31 consent. of both the courlsc-if, this matter has taken
13:3? f0";j }:1ea1~iI1g ami ('11Sp0S(',d c)f.
-3-
3. ‘.l’l1e 2-xppeklaxlt -~ lnsurz-1.r1(te Cornpany has (:l1alle,nged the
q1.:ar1t1.:’In of eompe1″1.s:;11ion awarded is on l1igl*1er___ side.
Respondent: No.1 lodged a Claim Peti.t1’.or1 under {he ‘p’re.:Visi.c):1s
of W()rkmeI1’s C()mpensatio1’1 Act, l3a3.’1g21lo1’e,_f}r1 /'”‘£:3~
2/NFC /CRW I I /2005. Accordillg to e121i1’naAI1t.,’_’ dd
a driver in lorry b :ari.11g regist1’2ltiofi..’_A
which vehicle met with an 21c(:i(l,_e’I1:. on”1.7;}.VlV.2O’04″”w’iieI1 it”
was proceeding from Su1’1.d§)o1′ t..<)""{}o3l,'"'on 1.\§éiti.0nai"l~Ilghway
No.63 near Yallapur — Arell$(:_Egha1,';" :as__éa..v1=esu1t of which, he
sustained grievousuiglj-1,1ri<§:As a.f1_§?. flfficitmfe tzoboth upper limb
and other 1A1<_{"viz:l,"q immediately shifted to
Ya.lla.pu;1_* }f'C)WSVI')i'taV1 to KMC Hospital and for
further t,;'e.21{:mef1t to Bowrring and Lady Curzon
V.leeI.()":-'spitéi-zl.V' ncrzil-3.e w:1s"fegisi:(t'r(:(;l before the Yallapur Police in
AcC()'rdi'1'1g to him, he was aged about 45
ox'; t.h..e~ {iéirte of the actcident and that h.e was getting a
" 5g1'ary of l..{:"1§oi».5O0/~.
*1*mé appellant. — lI”lS1,1l”c.1I’l(3€ Company contested the case.
-a:{i’r”:ai’i.tC(‘i iss1..1z’u’1ce of policy in favour of tl’Ie owner of the
§zt:1’1i(:£<: zmcl ii denied all other 22.vermen1,s made in the petfision.
:5:/'
-4-
Based on the above pk-tz1(‘Iia:1gs, points were formulated by the
C01’nm.issi(_)’r1cr_ I’3ef'()re the (lonlmissioner, the C}’c1i’.i’I1I:’.,1f1’i”.»yWfr1S
got. 1’1imsel.§’ examined as I-“.W.1 and he relietl 1e11)o:1~I£’xVs,_}*~lf1,_to
13-7. He also exzunined Dr.S.R2;m1a(:_t1andra_gist”-§?.V’J *.\t}*ho_
treated him at Banga.iore tllrough IwhQ:h,j.
were marked. The COEIlII’1iSStl{)4_I1€1″ “after the
e\,Ȥdenee let m by the parties thetteofteltfisjtten that as
per the opinion of the c1o’c:;’::’._(:5’1:’-. 50% to
both the legs and, 250/gA….tr,f.. However, the
Commiss1’0ner “l'(‘-i:”t:ia1 by the claimant
and the that the ciailnant is
su.f1_”eri:<1g ft':-_Qm and he cannot discharge
his duty as 3.t"'<:1_;rit"uerta_r14t(i.fufther came to the conclusion that
the (:121i;i}a:1t~ (:ar1ri0t..even. do norma} Work and he Cannot. sit
ztmad: sVt:a::;1Vci .f0"r,io;i"g time, he (:zm_:'1()t. walk, run and climb cycle.
_ V Theref<)rej i'1.1.t:1-e.i:'–0t:;é1I disability of the respondent. is considered
;1t..¢1_()()%,..ee:'1tifsry to the plzysical disability as assessed by
t)(5(i:t:.()r. A(:(:ordi11g1y a sum of Rs.4,06,656/– has been
__e1u?ard<e(1 with interest. at 12% [min the date of ae(:.ide.nt til}
3;(*3£l,1iSé.i.fi().i'1. 'I"'his order is called 11:1 qt,1est1'on in this appeai.
6/,
_a110w t.E1ea:i1)}3eae1. "
-5-
5. The main (:0r1tem§.0r1 of’ the appellants counsel is thai,
the C(:€()r. Therefore. he (:0nte}_’1<iVSXt.}'1z;t Dtheu
Commissioner should have ass<é.é;sed.,_ fi.1e {:,QInpe11saii_OI1.
payabie to Ciajmant basecl cm' the utif1e
Doctor. In the circumstances. i1(: Kf'<2:c_1:1I'*"'<e'§t ffle reduce
the compensation by A Iele further
conteucis that the is on higher
side. The entitled to claim
interest at i.nsti.tuti0n of petition
tili the daft; of 1*–'.?.% from the date of award
till the date Ofep3.}g1fiVe}:1.f.*.: 1%..(g Q'{)£'diI1g1y he request the Court to
6.’ L’ =}:£’e1vi1*1vg§ ‘E’1e22;f(i=the courlsel for appellant and counsei for
— .v.;’es[)(>n.(jIe111′ _E\T();’11.i_11e foilcnwing” point’s would emerge for our
. . 1 . _ ,.r;_o’n_s’id era t.ivoAr.’::
x xi)» VVhether the qu2’x,11t1.1111 of (:()mper1sat.i011
awardeai by the C0Imni.ssioner is on }:1ighe’r
side?
ii] Wlletlleif the i’mer(:si awarded reqm’.res
10 be re.d1.:eed’.r’
(3.,
– 5 –
7. So far as first point is concerned, it is nodoubt true that
the doctor has assessed 40% permanent disability toforie of
the limb and 10% to other limb in 331
considered as permanent disability to both the
on the same, the Doctor has also ogiiinedhthiat
applied, for the whoie body disability 1is,s”t-o beeVat’:’;25%}”~ e
But the doctor has deposed that disability is
taken into consideration,’ dfivef drive the vehicle.
axzwwi a do _ i
He has told in exa,niir1at.i.o1ji~in+(:h§.ef “abe.iiit”‘ the nature of
disability causedtito ‘Wily he cannot do his
duty as driver say other riorma} duty.
Even the stiek. for walking and therefore
considering tidei’u;1c’tioiié1i»*disaihiIit.y if the doctor has deposed
that is 10(3’%i…tiisahi1ity to discharge the work by the
a_.1fid.ji:f_the same is taken into consideration by the
Coiniiiis-sioriefifweiido not find it necessary to interfere with
the weiia feasotied order of the Commissioner. Accordingly
Neel heid against the appellant.
‘;So far as Point No.2 is concerned, in View of the
thidgrnent of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance
{L}/..
C()n1mi’ssi()I_1’e’1″..
“t]AGv
-7..
Co. Ltd, Vs. Molid. .Nz’1s:ir repcirted in SCC 2009 371.7.
clainiajit, is c:nt.it,1e(l to i1’1i.cresi at tlm rate of 7.5% p.£*si’,’.”‘»tf’1’0rn
the (.late ofthe petit:i(m till £1110 date of award and ai:;t**t_.?1¢.”0f
12% p.z;1., from the (‘late of 2-i.wa.r(i till. the (1_21t.r::_A’_:t’:.f: V’
A(:c0r(1i_r’1g;1y, we answer P()im.
appellant. ' l V 9. In the result, the The
q1.1aI’1t111I1 of c()mper1satioii’*–;iwa}f(l¢{i Corrzmissioner is
confirmed. liowevfg’, V_.ir1t<=::ms't:– (lommissioner
is rcducecl l1o1_r_lit':g "t.l;¢ *r§:s;_)0ii1e;ie11tWNo.l. « claimant is
entitled _v 0f'._W7;'5l'/c) p.a., from the date of
the 1)c:t'iti01i't:ill=tli€:' and at the rate of 12%
from the. date eiwzirfi tfil'IvAt'l.1C date of payment. Ac(:ord'i;r1g1y,
'-'lift-€"21rissi2vt;[r 5P()i4I"It_N().2« '15:-*.i§i'étV'l},' in favour of the appellam.
I 'V (.lep0sit" is ordered to he sent to the
'
Sdfl-
Judge
Sdޤ~
Tudge