IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 23TH DAY 09 FEBRUA}$*::§;'fi?t3~i§L"bi--. _
BEFORE';
TI-IE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ;A;.~:.~:§.' £:Ao:>Aiv15t}$;"AA.C.¢#"AA
M.F.A. a:o;'4A§3/2e¢eC M
BETWEEN:
1.
(By Srli-,_ S V KADADAKATT1 aw,
HANUMANT A
S /0 KALLAPPA MVAYA1VN_A':JAR.. _
Age-:20 YEARS I
occ NILL)
R/O
TALUK; E3_Q'UNI_'-A.'_I""PIA_,' D'1'ST.;gBELGAUM
... APPELLANT
L:NG1a:s£1Lv.%KA2?TiMANg,'AADvs)
wig?' "
* _ 1.NAPPA---EASAPPA KOUJALGI
Age; SC~._YEARS
~ : T_ "A.(}i"?..ICULTURE1
* ;R'/{);..S_UNADH.OLLE, TALUK GOKAK
to
C' ' DZST;',---_.13ELGAUM
DEVESEONAL MANAGER
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD
C' RAMDEV GALL1
C " BELGAUM.
RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: LAXMAN.1?3.MANNODDAR, ADV FOR R2.
R1~ NOTiCEl SERVED)
3%
IQ
MEA FILED U/830(1) OE W.C. ACT AGAINv’S:T«._T’I<{E
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 8.7.2005 P,A._S_&S.ELffj III
WC.SR.1S/2005 ON THE FILE OE T}"iui,T—- LAEOIJE
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR.__,W-OR-K'MEjN"S._
COMPENSATION, SuEmDIvIs»IION;2,.' M"EI~;I,OAI.;M,
ALLOWING THE CLAIM _..PETITIo'N.
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING E.I\IIIANCIEIvIEI\I-IIf’I’ICE
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMINOON EoR”‘AD’I’vIISSIoN THIS
BAY, THE COURT DELIVEREE),’I’HE._FOLLGWI.?iG:
The C1aiIIjIan_t 05 before
this of compensation as
against the the Commissioner.
2. The .CI;LInSe1’for the appellant While
seekfiinge’~enhan’e.e’men: of Compensation contended that
_VVioss.%’odf’*.earnIng capacity as assessed by the
Commissivoneirdis on the lower side. In this regard, it is
COI1:E’€3’16A€d.V ‘that the disability as Well as wages has not
A hedenéproperly assessed by the Commissioner. Hence, it
C’ is contended that the Compensation is to be enhanced.
The Learned Counsel for respondent however seeks to
$1.
justify the award passed by the Commissioner. It is
contended that in absence of evidence, the minimum
wages notification has been relied to reckon the wages
and considering the nature of the injury, the–‘j1o_s’sVT.”of
earning capacity as assessed itself is on V’
side. Therefore, no enhancen1ent’i’s’ called ford”-» is
3. in the light of what has ioeseni-_iVconte’n.ded «.bi}ii;:i’t1;i:e:._
respective learned counse1,”v–fii*st1y ‘sreggafdiiiiitoii the V
disability as noticed.by the”ci:j;aii::.1_ss1o:ier, he has
referred to the evidence-1’axiailiat)legibeifore. him on that
aspect«”o:”~ ‘=.’iI’h.e”reaft:er taking note of the
injurieié-;_«as_ “wound certificate and the
evidence itenderevdii~.on..–i”iibeha1f of the claimant, the
«.._ACo-fninisssioner ha’s——-‘–::o’me to the conclusion that the loss
is to be reckoned at 60%. In this
regard oi” the View that the Commissioner in fact as
ta1<:en',Vi_rlito consideration, all aspects of the matter
law laid down by this Court. Therefore, on
so __that aspect no interference is caiied for.
ia
4. The question however for consideration is
the wages as reckoned by the Commissioner:_ii’~..Thve
Commissioner has adverted to this aspect of:thefrriattei’–si *
while deciding point No.4 raised,for4CoI’isicieration.._:}_In V
the absence of documents the
accepted the claim of the that he i-yvasiiiearning i’
RS100/’ per day .B}~1t ireliedvion the
minimum Wages and has
fixed the wageaat No doubt,
procedure of wages notification is
appropiia’Lio.:’:§i»iiiIri:(3i1§;v’eVe.r%–«.iithe_””c’ommissioner has not
thereafter’ “matter further. The
notificationés oftth—_eiyear”iii2002, while accident is of the
and this period normally little higher
minimum wages fixed would be paid.
Thc,r:efore,iiitiV. vir*oul.d be appropriate to reckon Rs.90/w
duper da’y,V__i’1~ Accordingly, wages per month would be in a
f’T§u.mi:iA”i.of Rs.2,700/-. if 60% of the said amount is
hrrnfiitiplied with the relevant factor as noticed by the
Commissioner and if 60% is awarded toWa.rds loss of
i
‘J 1
earning capacity the compensation would be in a sum of
Rs.2,15,171/–. Since the Commissioner has already
awarded Rs.1,64,S66/~ the claimant wouid be entitled
to the enhanced compensation of Rs.50,6O5/;H._
enhanced amount the interest shall be at:
from the date of the petition tiii’Jthe”date of
thereafter at 12% from the date of._award.”.iti1ivthedate’g
of the deposit of the ampount. enhanced
compensation with inteorestiilsphali bleddeposiited by the
insurance company inH_6v’i’W’ee’ks’jdate of receipt
of a co’p’y’judgement”.~=”On deposit, the entire
amouritpslhall the claimant.
in terms of dab-ove, the appeai stands disposed.
* _ of0:._0_rd.er asiitoweosts.
Sd/4
JUDGE
it/mb.