IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 19%! DAY OF OCTOBER,;~*'2G.1'{,1'__j: u g
BEFORE z
THE HON'BLE 'A
M.F.A.No.e073/gzooomc}V % 1 %
BETWEEN: %
New India Assurance Co. Li"._d".,_ _
Hassan, Now represented by its
Regional Manager, _
New indla Assura1t1«:.'-5-2, Co. Ltd._.,
Regional Office, 25-:13, 57° _. ..
Unlty Buildmg ,:Ar1r;eX'e';'?'..__
P.Ka1inga Rao Road. ;j_ ' «. A
Bangalore --.~'"f¢A: ...Appellant
[By Sr}: .A.N . xKri:shna- ,]
AND:
" _ A
A ' -. , Sv,/_,0.Ran.ge,goWda.
' Rf a,,Th1ni'_manaha11i Village,
Kasaba .Hoi'}1Ai,
V --V HassanTaiuk.
Srr1--t,Nagarathna,
- T " ._W./ o,.-K.M.1\/Ianjegowda,
-- Age: Major, R/a.No.4f/'47,
__Opp: Gowrarnma Compound,
L/r
Hunasinakere Road,
Hassan. .. .Respondents
(By Sri.Girish.B.Baladare, Adv., for R« 1]
(Notice to R-2 dispensed with V/O dated 4.10.10}
=l=*=i==I=*=l=*
This M.F.A. is filed under Section 3D””[l*l~:::’_0f
against the Order dated 30.06.2009}_passed ‘*w”eA,!:xie/.e:sfi;-
96 /2007 on the file of the Laboui” Offi.ee’r._ and b’C30ii1I:’a.issiovner.p
for Workmerfs Compensation€”*~._pp Hassan, :’v_:ai5vai*ding
compensation of ?. 101,664/– with vVl::1’1.t_€1fl.3St at”l–2%
This M.F.A. coming onfor day, the Court
delivered the following’
Heardgthe learne’d.ceon’13_s’el’_ for the appellant and also the
learned eounse’1«.i’o1′ the llitrelspondent.
t’appeal is directed against the judgement and
order_ passed by the Commissioner for
WTorkme’n’s”–Corripensation, Hassan, Sub–Division, I-lassan in
§€u,.WCA/NF/SR–96/2007.
3
3. By the impugned judgement and order, the
Commissioner has granted compensation of ?.1,01,664/- with
interest at 12% p.a. from 30 days after the accident.
4. Aggrieved by that, the
Company has filed this appeal.
5. In brief, the facts are; The 15fArespcndentecfairriant
was working as a driver in the’}orryV”be’a1’ing”V1\§oi.’1«31B;3383iC’
belonging to the 2nd respondent.____d:}i’hat,on the 13′
respondent was retuming””to’ pHa.sS3’3.VI:1.uR’Qf1TB..M.ROad, in front
of APMC Yard; the bus bearing No.
KA–13-F~13’1.1′.= «of that, the 1st respondent
sustained. _ inj1i’ries=.vand Vclairned compensation. The
“has ayifarded a sum of ?.1,01,644/– with
inte–reVst~ from 30 days after the accident.
dwfiggrieyed by the appeI1ant–Insurance Company has filed
C it :’ 5lp33eai;’ Z
6. The Learned Counsel for the appe1Iant–Ins_nrance
Company contended that the Commissioner in
taking the loss of earning capacity of the 15′
25%. He also submitted that the doctor..has.’_”de_poVsIed.”that
first respondent has suffered permaf1.erit_ddisabtilityyvctf
respect of the Whole body and’«th’erefore;__ .theVd:’Cao:m’n1’is’sionerit
was not justified in takingypthe earpning ‘capacity of the
first respondent at 25%} that the
Commissioner at 12% PR1.
from 30 days ;a’nd:’th’e’Commissioner shouid
yv pppp :’;_::w ._ aPPz,;m;ggyt.tiI{1l~edo£e°g.
have awarded interest”;Vat 1/:;u.”% p._a. from the date ofiaward fié?;fi#teJLea§bA.,
at , 9_-/. pet annugn gw:~tfi;t’:te_fetg; atafwed ecu L, L,
Al/the date of 2Vpayn1ent_§V’._ “H_e’»«.therefore, submitted that the
impugned.judgeme1it order needs to be modified.
‘ :against this, the Learned Counsel for the first
:””x,___respondent that the Commissioner has rightly
‘taken the Iduossv of earning capacity of the first respondent at
253:’?/E; therefore, it does not call for interference. He also
…s:u”bri1p%itted that the interest may be awarded at 71/2% from the
L//,.
5
date of application till the date of award and thereafter, 12%
per annum from the date of the award till the date of
payment. ‘ p
8. The substantial question of law that _arise’s~._xfor
consideration is: d in it
Whether the Commissioner .wr,;i_s d
in taking the loss of earning c=(,tpcz;z:it;} 4′ V
first respondent at 25964′ and_ 1
interest at 12% p.a. from
accident?
9. first respondent has
suffered injurieis :righ’t…si;_oiiider, waist and other parts
of the body. ‘IV;h-ed dvoctor Ah.as..-deposed that the first respondent
permar1entA’disabi1ity of 18% in respect of the
who1e’..:C’f’ommissioner has taken the loss of earning
Vi”n….vcapacity”at v;25′?’g’iVWhich is not correct. The Commissioner
-4 should haveptaken the loss of earning capacity at 18% in View
pV”the_p_d’octor’s evidence. Therefore, the loss of earning
“fcapa_city is taken at 18%. If the loss of earning capacity is
L/_.
taken at 18% and the relevant factor of 169.44 is applied to
60% of the wages 1.e., ‘€2,400/~. the compensation payable
comes to ?.?’3,198/– and it is rounded off to €73,200/;;c««ealp”i_
10. The Commissioner has awarded 112% 2
p.a. from 30 days after the accident whichplijs
Commissioner should have awar_ded”in’terest,*a1;e.7%%§
from the date of application award and
thereafter, 12% p.a. fromithe till the date of
payment as held in omsnraillpé COMPANY
LTD., Vs M0HI).3._.:v1\ll5l;-$I’_:R_l’§Nli):leihl_C)é’iffrlER’:reported in 2009
ACJ Page 2742.
11. ,Accord1’_ngly; appeal is allowed and the
judgement alndlvorder passed by the Commissioner
for 2Wor_krne.n’s.V Compensation, Hassan Sub–DiVisior1, Hassan,
case, Na.t’NcA/NF/sR–9e/2007 is modified granting
t”l3ea:npensatioti:C of 373,200/– instead of ?.1,01,644/- with
71/2°/o p.a. from the date of application till the date
l’awa}rd and thereafter. 12% pa. from the date of award till
7
h the date of payment. The first respondent is permitted to
withdraw the amount in deposit before this Court to the
extent he is entitled. The balance amount shall be,re»ftinded
to the appellantwlnsurance Company.
t
T1