3N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
13591313 THIS THE mm DAY OF SEPTEMBER 20'
BEFORE
THE HONv;BLE MR.JUSTICZE_} H.B;LLA"?P;ég " '
MFA.N0.4253/2O0Q'':.{\N:f;} A» 9
BETWEEN: T '
The Divisional Manager, . _
The New India Assurance C_Qi::1pa.'ny:Lfd,_,
D.O.N0.8, No.47, Gopala C0m#.pi'eX,__'3'» " "
Zmf D F1001", V A ' g
Bazar Street, Yeshwantp11r,' _ -
Bangalore --~ 560 *
By its ...Appe11ant
{By an.Angaa;eeAsgmg{¢g;
AND: 2 V K
1. S.Krishn0ji"R_ao S}K.Rao,
, about 48' '}'tL§1I'S'..
S/'t:).Lz§T'te Smadar R50,
2 ' N'0...4/'-7_,"Cr'a:iesh Block,
A .'1.§'~ Ce1'0S'S., "D1r1n~ur Main Road.
'R.'F;Naga.fj,--- Beanga10re~ 560 032.
--. .W/o,S21f1jeev R30.
Ag'e..1\/Eajor.
{No.4/2, Ganesh Block, "£¢'~>'<- Cross,
}€)i_n'1":<ur Main Road,
" - ~R.'I'.Nagar,
L//_.
Bangalore »« 580 032. ...Respor1d_ents
[By Sri.C.Pu'z.t21s\--vamy. Adv, for R4)
5§<=!¢¥I=H=tfé«'«
This M.F.A. is fiied under Seet.ior1 30 A{<:t_
against the judgement dated 15.0-4.2vOtA)M9"ps1ssed«
2/NFC/CR--31/2005 on the me of the7L8Lbotir_ Off1eerd_d:"'»%trid:.
Commissioner for Workmen Corijtparsation, Subdvibiirisionflw 2,
Bangalore, ordering 21 compensdtiodfi of ~ with
interest at 12% pa.
This M.F'.A coming onto: day, the Court
defliveredthe
4 V.'=--._"'J*-..*_,_§;G
This judgment and order
dated 15¢}-2:009, Commissioner for VV()I'kII1€1'1
Compensation, Sub '"Division-2, Bangalore, in
tei3reAxAe'r¢e/NRC/er§';3'i%/2005.
impugned judgment and order, the
V'~..__CorramiseiorierhVxhas granted compensation of ?.1,99,5-48/-
x§_vi'th :Vir:te,rest at 12% per annum, from 30 days after the
h .zi(Qt1id::'3I1t.
L
3. Aggrieved by that, the appellant»Znsu_'ra:{1ce
Company has filed this appeal.
4. In brief. the facts are; The first res§)t}11d.e}{1't"' '
workir1g as a driver in the at1t:()ricksha:w bear§'ngVN'0V;£-*A~O4;»B»:
1738 belonging t.0 the second resp0n_c.fQI_1t"i.;A_A_t hetf;
at about 11.30 a.m.. the first r~e'SpQ11de:1t \2{es_: the"
autorickshaw opposite to:-Seva At that
time, the tempo bearing the left side
and dashed autoit a.VA"te:e_uv1"t that, the first
respondent su£§t:ai_r1~ed' " ' " '--_C}?:tiI1'}€d eompensation.
The compensation of
31,99,548/w {Vi_t.h 412% from 30 days after the
zgmeiciemzg
V’ A§grte”»ted by that, the appellants insurance
CoIIi”pai”iyA appeal.
6. “i”he”1earned counsel for the appellant-Insurance
..e«’C0’m:p2;.£1}5 ednt,ended t.hat; the Cemmissioner has erred in
E .
aé/w’
taking the ioss of ealming eapzzcrity of the first respcmderat at
50%. He also submitted that the Doctor has exaggerated the
disabiiity and therefore. the Commissioner was no’t’-jtzsstiofied
in taking the Ioss of earning capacity of the first _”re.spot;.de:1’t V’
at 50%. He also submitted that tlitem f’1’1’st, “.;~aspofi’de:’v1’t*ehds
suffered permanent disability of”jV20%A:’in the
body and therefore. the Cor11Inis’sioi*;e1” was not jttstified in
taking the Ioss of earning e’apAaeity7st etiso “submitted
that the Commissioner has err’e_d’ di’n:’»’j’.nterest at 12%
per annum from :tfte1*:”t’h’e…..&¥:ocide11t but. the
CommissiotietwVs’h*oft}_1d: interest at 71/2′?/o p.a.
from the “of “till the date of award and
thereatt;et,- 1 date of award till the date of
submitted that the irnpuglted
to be modified.
7′. d avgainstt this, the learned counse} for the first
stlbmitted that the Commissioner on proper
‘ -‘ij”eo’t3’siderat,ion of the materiai on record, has awarded just and
‘../I
reasonable compensat.1’o11 and therefore, it does not Call for
i.11terference. He also submitted that the Eboctor has d_e.p0sed
that the appellant has suffered permanent: disability of ._ir1
respect of the right. lower limb 3.116 20% in
whole body and the functional disability’ is 50}/0 V
the Commissioner has taken the loss.vol’-._eA’srnir1gleapa{:.lt}€AVblé1wt_
50% which is proper and thexfslore, for”?
interference. He also sub}:11ltted«..thatZe_:’thejnterestisawarded by
the Commissioner is proper e.1i’dltlrrerefore{_’£t1’does not call for
interference.
8. have Ve}3afeJ’::till_xl?’cor1.sid’ered the submissions made
by the learned” c__our1sel_ parties.
lTl~”:e suljs–t;1;§_tls.l question of laxv that arises for my
Clo_ru1siCle-:’3rtio_11«.eie.,l”‘€7Vhet’her’ the Commissioner was justified in
vtakirlxgelthe loss:–Q[7=.et1rr1ir1g capacity of the first respondent at
l’le._ 5C*% anc:llll cttifiartitrlg interest: at 12% pa. from 30 days Cg/’ier the
f_”v:Vvctceic?ent:i?..A g
in
30. It is reIeva.nt. to note, the first .respon.der1t has
suffered fracture of right knee and the other injuries: The
Doctor has deposed that the first respondent tvaiks’
limp. there is deformity in the right knee, the
cannot waik faster. stand ionger, :{‘invds”it-.c;1ifiic1,t1_t;”iti,o4 Ciirrafbirig ‘
stairs, sit eross–Eegged, squat arid theA1′;{ii’st resporident
do the manuai work. The Doctorvfihabs
at 40% in respect of the right 1Q.’q*i?:é1″.’:i}’1;}tv}i3-…E’lI1C1″20g’5′”it3 respect
of the whoie body. Functiorlai It-iAs..vei.s_sessed at 50%.
The Doctor has advised the not to drive the
autorickshzvétwHeisftvhe Cannot use the right
tower limb to apply’ Therefore, the Commissioner
has taken the loVssvAoi’vearr2ir1vg capacity of the first respondent
A’F:3O%”;” Rwhhieiii” is and therefore, it does not 09.1} for
inte’i=fer.enee[f~fl’he11::.?is no merit in the Conterltiorl of the
VI€E1I’1’1€’.d'”~._Cfllfiligiéflt for the appeiiaiiii and aeeordingiy, it is
‘vihrejeheted.
t gntferéfififii
1. The Commissioner has 21w22rdedA}2% p.21. from 30
if.
days after’ the accident, which is not correct. The Hiorfble
Supreme Cou1*’i’ in ORIENTAL INSURANCE
LIMITED vs. MOHD. NASIR & ANOTHER 1*eported««jiii:’2f:)€3A9
AIR SCW 3717, has heid, the iriteresi: has to
7%/2% 13.3.. from the date of app}i(:atio:’.:”‘ti–1IAi;heHeiateI. ii
and theieaflier, at 12% 13.3. from the
of payment.
12. Therefore, the ;_.appea1.—-fie”~ai§–owed.”‘in far as
interest is concerned. Accoioi’ng1yf}fheiijafidginent and éféééfi
passed by the Comniissiofiéefvb 1i’e’;;;1.’.?3 Compensation,
Bangalore, L C356} /2 /NFC/CR–3 1 /2005 is
modified, in so’fa1- is concerned, granting interesi:
a.t–7}/2% from the–vd,ai_e.»oi” application til} the date of award
th:e’reafi2ei”,~iai;«:ii!% pa. from the date of award til}; the date
of payiliem. vI’Iiv’V’_:’_”c_i1V:].–::VV()J€.1’1€t1′ respects, the judgment and order
_’V~..passed by ..the Commiesioner for Workmerfs Compensation,
in case No_wCA/BN0/2/NFC/cR~31/2005
‘ .’ij”re:_fn:airi;s unciisiiurbed. The first respor1dent is permitted to
withdraw the amauznt in ciézposit before this Court to the
extent he is entitled and the balance amotmt, if any. shalt bfi
refunded to the appellant ~Ensu;ra}:1ce Company.
Bss/JS.