1
IN THE HIGH COURY OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 7*" DAY OF DECEMBE'§§;f':2"9§Q:§~~.,
BEFORE
THE I-lON'BLE MR.JUSTICE"SU'B§-|"AS;§;!:A'L5'.A1312
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE"-.
COMPANY LTD., -A
EVIALLAPPA COMPLE>-
ND:
1. 'SF{.I.VASA_NTH, AGEO 22 YEARS,
ROOF SR'I;---*F--IPPAN NA,
RESI_[jE.E\|TS OF SHANKARGHATFA, B.R.P,
A.E'§H._AD"RA_V.ATHI TALUK.
2} SRLRALANIYAPPA, MAJOR,
R SON OF SRLKAVERAPPA
RESIDENTS OF UPPARABIRANAHALLI,
" LAKKAVALLI HOBLI,
QTARIKERE TALUK. ...RESPONDENTS
k% S-(Sv SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R~1)
MFA No.125s oE 2S&o’%é$(wc)~. «L A
2
MFA FILED U/S 30(1) OF wc ACT AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT DT.21.10.2008 PASSED IN
wCA/CR.NO.37/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR
OFFICER ANO COMMISSIONER FOR wORi<MEN*S
COMPENSATION, SHIMOGA, AwARoING{g1 A
COMPENSATION OF RS.4,05,396/–
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMI.S;E*3IC4):él:\l:Tl;!ih$*3'.i
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLL._()\..f.\l1:l\«.l§3':..V: _ I
JuoGMEI~§_: i
This is an appeal filed titted_'inSurer–"–agai'nSt;
Judgment and award in
i\lo.WCA:CR–37/2006;:.._o':n _the j_'ilve'*..of.,iA'the Cornrnissioner
for Wo__rkm–enV"COrnpe'riivSga't«i.onI Shimoga questioning the
liability.A'T_ifhevv r'eSoo.n=dje'_ntVNo.1 is the claimant. The
_ A res.p.§ghd e nt Nno".=2i iS___the owner.
"ivheV.'1reSpondent No.1 filed the Claim petition
'a__inter alia. alleging that he was working as an Operator
A ":if"_o.n"t_he Paddy Hulling Machine and was drawing
. per month + Bata of Rs.25 per day and
«V
ifs'
3
alleged that while he was working on the_..__said
machine, on 13.1.2006 his right leg came
wheels of the machine and as a result
suffered crush injury and he Was”«op’erate§1’«.gnd7r’on:
account of the said injury, his rigghtleg
below the knee and llzicllaimed
compensation.
3. The ipetitiojnv’yEa’s””‘contested by the
insurerfloyv denying the wage
and also denVyi”iV:g…* 5
v.~5;.-4i}.”Before=–t.hv_e___ACommissioner, both claimant and
aglso,Vthe’=£nsuvr.er were examined. The Commissioner
corjsiaerarigthe evidence found that the income of the
“.__claimani:’;.at Rs.4,000/~ per month was reasonable and
the said income he determined the
:3
compensation at Rs.4,G5,396.DO. This judgment_ and
award is called in question by the insurer.
5. Sri Ravishankar,
for the insurer has submitted
by the insurer, it is state’d:_’t’haVt.the was
collected at Rs.727/’–:_”‘f:3r and l§s.-480.22
for the two helpersv’_..a.nd–.. oti,?,—-tVhe same, the
claimant ientitied to wage of
Rs.62/v~__ said evidence, he
further the Commissioner without
regard to’the_said.l’e.v’idetnce, has erroneously fixed the
Iiabii:,i.ty,i” DnV”t’h–e__other hand, learned counsel for the
‘cla’ima–nt’~isub”m_itted that in the evidence the claimant
has”‘staVte’.dif_tl*iat he was working as an Operator and
‘u__the medicval evidence shows that his right leg was
,,il,”anf;l;5’L,stated below the knee on account of which he
. perform any duty much less the skilled job.
5
The learned counsel submitted that the Commissioner
should have taken 100% disability instead
is taken by the Commissioner. A it A
6. In so far as the co.n_tenltion’–o.l”‘
that the income should a.t;§Vlts.’62/-V
per day is not basedton in the
oral testimony, statement
such a document is
income of the
claimant.._ his evidence has stated that
he was ‘Wo_rl<ivng" a.sAV.'.Gpje.rator and alleged that he was
wor§«§{i'ngi'~ day.""~a:nvd____.night. Apart from this, the
'CVomm–i.ss~io'ne'r.__ has noticed that the claimant has
sutferediliacmlfiutation of right leg and has taken the
'v._y'incorri~ev""atvRs.4,000/-. The Medical Certificate along
A ":lf"_v-.uth""A_the photograph is also produced at Ex.P7. The
insurer has not raised any contention before the
\
"_i ntehest.
6
Commissioner nor in the objection statement as
regards the nature of the work and the income’
claimant. Therefore, the insurer cannot
to urge such a contention in ttiis”a’pp_e’a_l. .;«
Commissioner based on the med’ica}–._evideri_ce’vh”as’;only’-,
taken 75% disability even inxgase of arhifiuhtatiionifl
7. Considering,,,_._,th.e the injury,
considering the claimant
was awarded by the
-reasonable calling for no
interfereiace. V i
8, ‘Hov_y’ev_er, as far as interest is concerned, since
it.is”lonvly7–V;=i’;_ riolicy under the workmen Compensation,
‘a_as oe~.rfit;he policy Ex.R3., there is no contract to pay
Accordingly, the compensation at
i” [ Rs.4,o5,396.oo is hereby confirmed but without
l \
7’
interest. Amount in deposit shat! be transferrede-to the
Commissioner.
Appeal is disposed of accordingly. M
akd*