The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Shri Bashasab on 11 December, 2008

we '1m:; HIGH <3.()LJ§<I'i' or l<.A£~<INA'£'A.§{A (,:ii<<:.Ui'i" Br;j§€i::H
air GULBARGEX   

DATES' THIS 'mg 21%? DAY CF u§',cEMBE::?é.. i2;{§}':é~é§si'-   ~

gEFoRE;M_

'1':~us E-10.9; mgxx; MRS, ..1u::;*1':<:[1::4B.:'g.J:s:;:xGa§<'a:i'H;$:;i;"~~,%,..A :3

2;1..1:,;::1:<:"r2 V

jl;5JfJ:§'_'v;'*é1f2if35'¢ 5

The New india Ass11ra:1c:é V{_Zt)'.L;'i;:if,' 
Brarmih at Bijapux,   '

Rep. 8}; its Manager, _' '  _   
Ratgiienal oases;    "   
Unity Bt1ii£i;i1:ig"'AJ:is::é:3_L;a;      ' »
Missiczn Roézd, j   '
Ba:nga1Qre:;ES6'QA_€)2"?':,:_ 

 PsPi~'£:2LLAN'£'
(BY SKI. v:*c::::e.::;s£----: .;§. ;}na;;?i';-.,, ADV.)

:§i§;§;.;_§  'V

  :«. ,$':~:;5;;;e§,1zgsan, Sic
 HV11$saj1:..4${:a?)"T§:izt1vi, Ageci 32 yeams,
"'§.{Ia?1_a1 I11£§:§)1§_£1',~ .B%_'iapur Tq. ,

Bijapur E!i$f::j_i<:.€.'.

 2.  Mfs imlharath
_ 2 Vfifjzxm Insiiisfiées, Near Raflwaj; Siafisn,
A v?5g;apre.;r.

 E<fE£§5E'iZ}N1}£*3i'-ETS

 {BY 3:-an Aifiiiflii .m:<AL,mN3H5*:*:'v§ EXUV. ;~m43/~ with iniarest at 12'!/o p.a from 28.912683
ta 12.10.2006 and ciircctijlg U716 appellant hcrééxi to
deposit the same.  

This MFA <:o1"ni11g an for BEARING  

1::-ssurt delivared the foilowingz

J is D §_u;W1m-x%« & 

Tizis appeal is   tfiex""Lnsu:fai;1§;::+ '_vV' L.

chafiezlgilig the award passet:i'VL'Li3sf ti1e §';T,o15n1fii§sionc£ at
Bijapur in No.WGA+5§£*,.  his "afde1* dateti
22.10.2086. __ % '

1%, ;"£.'_t1e*   case an: that an 18.8.2003
white tiflf;  was woirking in the factory umier

tE7;€,~§l§evg:{)11d :'€xé»';::o;;§§ :eHt:t and a¥:ten€f.:i11g to a inachiim, he flail

» §;i<3x§r;"1..VAa1a.d«11,

A' V3,».  Afler sewicc af ;10i:ice, tile apgmfiant irxsurance

VA  ..  eéampanjg appeared and fficd 111:3 W"£"ifi.€I1 statement denying

the avermants made in the ciaim §€:ti'i:it:)§:} and contenciizig

that the saws bfi dismissefi. Thfi secoixé rezsjpergdeni .E'1€I'6.iI1
'§

/'



- 3 -
also appeamci mad citinied the avfixmenm $21 the Ciaim petition
and aitematively submitted that in Vitw of the iI1S111'a;;:_Ce, the
first respencient is Iiaiaie to satisfy tbs award a1:,.:i.V_Vf:§3%$§.=;'£.vvno

i;iabi§ity can befaii it.

4. 011 the basis of the rival  

W.(3.{lommissi0ner flamed isstgcg _é:;€£ 3;ftt:::".__ 

ctviciencc has graxzted (P»bV

1033 of earnixzg Capacity'   fifst féspandcnt.

izicing" éigigziréifed ' tiie . 'Véxceééive' V eempensation. granted by
the C,(MToH1ii13:;S':3i0x1§r;.." ghe ixasurance company has
1Z}I'€f!3I'£'fidV' this -ap'pé:a§I.  \. ,,

 'viufiave  $:$x'i.V:zeresi'1 $;$.Pati£, iearrmé mmxsei for

,A   and Srfufishak imagyan Shetty, Leaxned;

1" 'f_'fZ?.I"_ I'a'.%S}5§I1C§Cflt No. 1 ,

  is ::éé1z.i§:amitt£ci on behalf of the apmfiant that the first

 resgaéngiééflt Suifttifid fzacturc of the iefi: foot and it was an

  pcnnantrsnt disability. But the CGIflIfiiSSi.01'i€I' hag

'  iakén thus: less of earning capacity ta be €;:U'*/y and has

awardeci cxaessive tamgsczxsatimx: hie thersfars, mqumts



4»/'



this court to: reassess the evidence on record and 1:\$_:_du<:.t3 thfi

awani mach: by the W.{:.(§om:m:issioner.

'7. Pm" (zcmtra, it is submitted by the :[ca1f::1'éci«--£:}g;:=1Vj;:;i$f:A'l"t?;3r

tha first respondent in support (sf tiiw. df 

W.C..{_1on:imissioner that in view: of ‘tp to’, “V

the ieft. lower lixub, 60% lgss of éaxfiing c;i;§ac:§i:yA’ cétniiof be
held to be on the higher 336;}? memjére, . suE3a;x1if$ that the

appeal be ciismissécif &_

8. éfiééfit comtifcxztions the oniy” paint
t£1a.tV a1″:’i3_t:s: foffzfgf é€t§{iésé;ic.ratiG1z is as to whether the award

passed by the: W._.C’.~iA3rr.:£i11iss§o11eI reqjziires any modificatioxz?

.53; ‘~§~<'mm V1133 vfividfillfifi an rmord, it is not in dispute that

–.tj1{: _fu*31@j”és1;0ndent had suficred accidental injuritas afisitig

V” éV1,:tVVi;*;f”_a-:.1:;::i,~T.:;§.i;}:x”i1:1g the course of cmpioyment on 18.8.2993

ffilfiv tha crush fzngurics on the Raf: daxsum {pf fast with

AA ,§,f3;$ s’Q:.£fi bone and tendon itnsing exposed and them befmg

VV “§’éCiC’i1I’6 of meta tarsal cubic: ha-neg and fmctum €)fI1a’i7iC1f£.ia,I’

bone, he had Izrsécrgonc surgery’ and thereafter had taken
f0i£oW»u§§ tmatment. A€?€’fOIdil’}g to me: Qkzmopaedic ¢:£0C:tt3r

{mm {ha X» Ray of the left {twat he ebsazved that them was

$5”

– 5 ..

absence of meta tarsal and cormspondiag _ph.aia,I3.gn3s anci

ma} union of iefi media} cubic form bong’: and that the said
injuries are causefi if a person is invoivezfi in ru;n11ing__ biades

of maahinexy. Accoxfiing ta him, tilts: perma11c11?:.V~.

disabiiity is abant 40% to 459/0 to thc lef’: iii:-:_Ti§;

Lionsidenng the fact that there sz4ra$H$§1ceri:c::”iir1g– <:§u';'T iéff foot = ,

2 to 4<:m$ and mavement of the 'a=;,;:£i

there was absencc of .lef1:7gxjeai: ti1eT.'éi*a;§;:fs,sm.é1nt

pemxanant disabiiity to an CXiff£I}_Vf 'Uffv"r{)'.'s;"d"§f§?VV:9'5§7$"'/'oVVi:?€5 just and
pmper oo11sidez:i;n.g ihé fésgqcsyficignt wafi; finxpioyad in

a faCt0:'§,¥;' – _ 7;.

H). 7v.j:~i()%K7r:'<i¢?,IV*,"*Lff1»§ V&E*J».(3–v.C(;s-'mémissiener has met assignéd an}!
}f€aS€}I1SVVé':}$.f in ti€..~Wa thazjéjwas ioss sf earning cagzacity "EC: an

E:iv:;¢'f4_§'3"IiV1:L'~!"l-f3 111: fact having regard ta 1113 scheduie

.' W.(3.Ac.-.1 in rtzsptxzt of scheduied izzjuries, the

._ afearxiing capacity" Wouid bf: 6(Pfo them is

ldss csfai £15116 or thumh and faur fingers ef a hand.

EL " .£f_J%;weVfir, iii the instant casts: fax' the injuriefi and

_ «:i ef£:r":3:1it:i€3 neiied above, in my ccasrzsidezfifi view, tim was sf

iéaming <:a;3acit.j; cazmot be béf-fa. instead Gf mmaxidiixg tbs

matttzr far the pmrposs 0fcieteztmi:1i:n:1g the percsntage £033 cf

$9"

1,.

-5-

earnmg capacity, i am of the View that the percentagr: less of

earning capacity can be held to be 4~{.}”x’o in the”: i.x1s¥:a11_t. case

and accordiixgiy campensatiofl Wsuki be Rs1,?v9V,V_£*;¥;}§4..72

munded (:1-ftc Rs. 1,7939%/– {awe of i<s.3,6Q<;l'_};"éés?-Qgia-.__:§'

4u;'1ou; insiflad of r*§.€:..i330i:iii’i<:_a4:i;;f1i