M/S The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Prakash S/O Avvappa Sanni on 27 October, 2009

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH
AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 27*" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE A.S.PACHHAE'_JR_E"V;~ " 
MISC. FIRST APPEAL NO. 5002/zooaiaamrcfl  -A 

cgw  _ _ '
MFA cR0B.No.1032,/.2008 _,  A

BETVVEEN

M/s. The New India Assura11eeV.C0.I;td...,'    

P.Ka1i:{18a1 Raga Rfiafl.'   T
Banga10re_--"27 "*-- = 

By duiy C0nSi_ifi1;_fed Mtfariaey. ....Appe1Iant.
[Sri.Veereeh.B.'PafiI;  for Appeflant).

   S/0.AVVappa Sarmi,

 _ Ag'ed"a_b'evut 23 years.
« 'R,/';:.._Jy'11y Galli, Bijapur.

2]  Rev-ahna Siddappa Mallappa
" Tdnashyal,
.,_ Major in age,
 Residing at Honnalli, Bijapur. ....Resp0nder1ts.

   __{Sri.Um.esh.V.Mamadapur, Advocate for C / R. 1].
{Sri.Bapug0uda Siddappa, Advocate for R. 1).



2

This MFA filed U/sec. 30 (1) of Workrnens
Compensation Act against the order dated: 30.3.2004
passed in WCA/SR/l04/2003, on the file of the Labour
Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Sub-Division 1, Bijapur, awarding
compensation of Rs.2, 15, 137/-- and direeti1'1g"»o the
appellant herein to pay the same).  -.  

This appeal Coming on for hearing  

court delivered the following:   _ __ .
JUDGMENT.' 

The appellant -- insurer has eh:a~i_lei1g%ecl 

compensation awarded to theifirst res'p.orrd.ent'lvherein for V

the  by..llVV1V9i'im in a Motor Vehicle

Accident in thevpe0Afurse..pof«his employment.

  v'.l'h-e.__f_a_ets relevant for the purpose of this

' pappealv areas under:

A it   referring to the parties as per the rank

 beforethe Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

Cf for"-the purpose of convenience.

D4



The appellant herein is the second respondent and

the insurer of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.i{A*28/H»---.i 927

owned by the second respondent herein the

first respondent before the Con1mission_er;-..V.  dfirst!'

respondent herein filed a 

was the cleaner on the yehic1e"referrediV.tuoabove; tandfl

while cleaning the lorry on  the Vehicle
was parked by the of  _ near the cotton
market at Hubli, 2;... the opposite

direction   there'by'v*ne sustained fracture of

his leg  He was admitted in the

 I-Iospitai aridAt?f1ser--eafter he took treatment with the

 Dopctors;"'------fie sustained disability and averred

 he_;'vifas.::getting salary of Rs.3,00o/+ PM and daily

hats of  In the circumstances, he claimed

 compensation by submitting an application under the

 provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

bi



4

3. In pursuance of the notice issued, the first
respondent admitting the employment of the petitioner as
the cleaner on the Vehicle alleged that the wasjiaying

Rs.2,500/-- per month as salary in addition to}; 

day as bata. He also contended 

respondent insurer is liable  
Whereas, the second res,po'nde1l\Eh:v,,,¢ile¢1 
objections denying the relationship of and
employee between  first respondent

and alsol'th.e.p:sa1arj;r;--liability andthe disability. On these
grounds.' it  of the application.

  basisisof these pleadings, the learned

 Cornrnissiloner frained that issues and it is thereafter,

  examined as AW--l and the Doctor

vlfas  as AW--2 and in the evidence, the

 .,docu.me"nts A-1 to A»? were got marked." The first

l'l~_resp'londent did not lead any oral evidence but the

 "  "second respondent got marked the Insurance Policy HR-

a/."_.,



2(1)] with consent. The learned Cornn3iss.ierie_r'~V.for
Workmen's Compensation, on 
material on record assessed the.wa_ges;of
at Rs.2,000/~ per month and 
at 70% adopted the releizeint factors  
granted the compen.sationt---of"::Rs;--.1.,8;f,O76./and the
interest of  at 18%.
Aggrieved by .ihe_   the insurer
has  :t_i>n.V. appeal. The first
respondent: 3:; = tthed" ' "erhss~obj eetions seeking
enhan"e_en1ent  ' .

  It  heard the Eeaned Counsel for the

   also the first respondent {cross--oi;>jeotor].

''  6.'. point that arise for my consideration is: "
"Whether the compensation awarded to the
 first respondent herein is on the higher side and

whether it requires any modification? 

ML



7
70% and therefore, he submits that the compensation

has to be enhanced.

9. I have carefully scrutinized the material placed
on record in the context of the submissions madeyby the

learned counsel. There is no dispute  

employment of the applicant on the vehi~cle4_j .. 

and the applicant having su=stained 'iinju'1*ies""in_ 
accident in the coursefof hisl.v_einp1oyrii,ent,  Thesis'

applicant has produced  injuiyilcei-i.ificate and

it reveals  h_e«ha<:ld"sustained a cut laceraiied wound
over theright "thefX«ray reveals fracture of both

thegbcries oi7th'e'1riglht:leg and ankle level. The Doctor

   that the injury sustained is grievous in

 as could be seen from the disability

 certificate produced at Ex.A--4 issued by AW-2, the

 Doctor on examination of the applicant: states that the

Mix



10

ORDER

The appeal is allowed in part and
Objection is dismissed. In modifi»eatior:? j
and award passed by the leetrnedt ”

Workmerfs Compensation,._Vti:.e res};ond_er1-t herein’

(the applicant) is the heofiipiansation of
Rs. 1,60,351/- with :fité;es:s.raitisr1 12. 1. 2.2002 1:111
its deposit. ioefore this Court
shail 133 :’iT:bI'”if:.’ Commissioner for
‘fo1″‘p%aymeni’ and the excess
amoiiiit ” refunded to the iuggurance
COmPan$f.<__"V . .,

directed to send the records to the

,1e'e§rned«'V'fCorfx1i1issioner for Workmen's Compensation

fort'hw'itAh§' "

Sd/-

JUDGE

sWk*

……..«….,,