IN THE 1~:§m~I COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL0gS;.% “”T._
Datefi: This the 21st day Of August f20£)’§?”” «’ A4
BEFORE
mt: I-ION’BLE M12.JUST1c:E V.;m<':ANr§A'1f'§i;§§a4
M.F.A.No.12144.I:2(i06"'£W'C3 A * V'
3ET"WEEN: A ' V "
NEW INDIA A3st:R.a;NcE’ C.0…1j:m,,,_
No.339, 1 §’LO€)R,’*–N.ILfiA§:_ ‘c:1′<::_)':3s',~% _
SAM?AC.}i ROAD, MALLESI-i'£¥AR{§.M_',.. '
BANGALORE.
BY NEw,.1;~:.1_3’i’A As;suRA=N{;:E’~C9V. L’i’=D.,
nzxr:s1Q?s:A1;r)F1«’;£;E30.8,, ”
GGPAL c.@Mw:3Lgx;-._BAzgs2 _E§’I’ R’E§ET,
YESHK’£A;N’F’HPUf€,«,BAI’~l’GALGF§E–22.
I3? ITSJ’ :§?i;é;NAi:§Es2:;’*A..:’_’ .
. ‘ …APPELLAN’I’
{By Sri ?ALARAJu
. AGE'{}’j_AE’3{)U’I’ 29 YEARS,
rsz§:.’2., arm Mam R0-AD,
GAM§?ATHI NAGAR, _
‘ x T PEENYA INSUSTRIAKL AREA,
‘ BMEGALGRE.
“2 M E} PRABHU DEVARAJU
MAJOR’, FA’I’HER’S NAME NOT
BISCLGSES, 131′ MAIN RGAD,
S’RiKANTESHWARA NAGARA,
BANGALGRE.
RESF”f3flDENTS
(By gm H N NANJUNDMAH, ADV. FOR R1.
Sri C B PRAKASH, ADV. FOR R2.)
‘I’HiS MFA FILED ms 30(1) 09′ w.::. ACT A{3;’SV§’f{.S§f’§f:’V’v.,’
THE QRDER DATED 29/6/06 pAss»_§:L:«..,.’_~–.1_:~:«
\%ICA.CR.NO.13[(}4 on ma FILE OF THE-‘..LABf)U§’i.?. ‘
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
{3OMPENSATiON, SUB DiVISION«1:,””E£P§RMEKAV4B§,§§£\VE’xI?§Ig.
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALCb}REb-_2T9;. P1W’AR’DIl5§.G:_LLA.V:AT_TA’
COMPENSATIGN OF’ RS.2,56,284]¥<AW¥_TH IN'FERP}$'T
12% FROM 1? / 10/03 'TILL THE'; DATE '(}.F'DEP€).S?fl',v' '
THIS APPEAL CQMING HEAf§i_N<.3_{% THIS
BAY, THE comm' 9EL:§%E._m::;j 'r;§:::149f_<:{LLQw:NG: "
the appeliant in
1:'t:;-",~,pf challengng the erder
of the ‘Cc:11zi1i$sidi1erw None appears for the
‘~ . re.-€r§¥;xz1fi’§I:tS. ….. .. e
% 2’; i’_., _Siigbfiission cf the learrled counsei for the
apfizflafit i5:’V’that tha imgugned erder sufiers firm: t’W€}
V. ,u:def§:ct$;”‘ .Th@ first one is that the ciaimaxzt was not 331
_ E:.;.fxé;*p1£3§:”:-:6 Lmcier the insurad and in a private Vehicle
“”theI’e 13 no coverage of a driver and secondly the
medicai evidence daas not indicate the loss of earning
capacity and therefore the finding of the
it
3
Commissioner that then: is 50% less (ff
Capacity is not basmi on evidence. In rtzgard ti}.
above gI’011I1C3$ put forward, ieaarned 00113136}; ~
thmugh the evicience 07.1 mcord __and 48131:)” ‘féfeifgééd
Sectitm. 4 of L116 W0rk1nen’s A
3. Having thu$ ii»ez;-:j_’1j’:§L_>le£§i’I1;:(i ‘”f{3;x1’
tha appellant, in pm:
ibrward is c9I1c:e1’I1ee:l, I with the
contenijun 6X8_ZIT1iI”i€:d
the ézmployer has
stated hi3 driver and he was
3.139 éf lVE §..V4,€3€}O/~ per msnth. Thus,
V’ ..i;§1(~*;’:%.é}:*;rie;i:c?-t1*:¢:::.:,« of 1′}ié”CIéaj;13a:1t gets ample supmrt fiom
L.’.t1’1§ himself and it is I103: possible ta
accgfii th’t’_:” :’..–C$I1tention put forward as regards the
“*»¢:}ai111é£tté:’i3ei11g not an mnpieyae under the irlsured.
However, as regards the seczonci gmund is
.»+;n§:sz}<:e1*';1ed_, the Conxmissianer has opined that the
V 1055 G1' earning capacity is 50% and arriving at this
(,3-«
4
figurci: the C§()}CI1I?£1iSSi(}I}.€I’ has taken note of the
evidcznce <31' tha Doctor who was examined as PWSZ.
5. Havirlg gone through the ,,
evidelzce, I {moi that except stating the M
at $594, and Whoie body disabi1it;fét.”25?/§, thé :[}(s}:::t0i9′
has not stated about the percentégé zlosspt ”
capacity. In Section 4 of t11e”§’i;’3.Acf ‘II
provides that in asses.$i;;’1g 111’ ‘g’Ca}”pacity
for the purpcses of qualified
medical” due regard to ‘the:
percenégés éi’ capacity in relation to
diifelffigxt in Schedule-1.
_ 6,.’ .t__h<:~: instant case no such assessment
by the Doctor and the D0Ctar's
'V r:tvi(ié::j1(:%3_d§§§es not even indicattz What was the 10553 Qf
' kea:=g;1T:g%%%capae§:y having regard to the iimb disability
é§;;j1t;'i x.x?i10i€ body disabiiity. As such, oréer of this
hbanmmissioner suffers fram the saié écfeci: and the
matter requires remand S0 that assassment of 1053 cf
Eaflflflg capacity is made in aocerdance with
5
afereznentioned prevision contajfied in Explaxmtion H
to Secfien 4 9f the W.(3. Act.
’17. In the result, the appea} is
far as the £053 of earning capacity assessédi’ ” ”
Commissioner is concemed me,%« 1:1:ia§t:=:1_’ _
renfitted to the Ciemmissicntzer Vfbr:”the V’
mcording a finding as rega1’€Ié3. _{?;i1€ perceniage loss
ef eaznmg capacity ‘_ tI1§=§1*eai’te1_’ ,§§0..Adispo*$e of the
cast: ix} accordance with law of thrtie
1″non%:hs. Anaoufit’ -é1j’j;.dej5{:;Sit”‘-§)e- t1′:«}1’1sféfred to the
W.C. Cammissiénéi a::dVViVi’ gfltfiait with subject
to the rc:sL1ifI:_ _ of 1f;i’:€: ‘ passed by the
I A ~ ….. .. \\
Sd/J
JUDGE