IN T H I} HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
1')ATPZI) THIS THE E67" DAY OI?' DEC EMBER 2009
B EFORE
THE z--1oN'1-sue: MRJUSTICE SUB}-IASIAT1 B.A.1§1_. at I ~
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10O53/"2_:O08'V{iV{5)['
BETWBDBIN:
National Insnmamte Co. Ltd. .
Muddappa Complex, 151 Floor.
Vivekananda Road. Tumkur
Now represented by its
Regional Manager. V '_ f
National Irasurancrzé Co. Ltclf} * '
Regional Office, '-
Subharam Comp1c:x.=--
144, MG. Road, 'V
Bangalore - 560_.0,01.§f" .. A if. ,f"APPr;LLANT
{By Sri. A. N; "K171$13H8§€'i2f£1II1y~;_ ACfV .3 ' " V V
AND:
1. Muraii, _
S /o ».Mariyan.,na,* "
Now aiged a.bou{.. ,2___41;_'_\Iee11*s,
- ' R/o '3£"E';aV'a.;'ekere Viliage,
» 'E~'»_iVra..Tq,, __
" VTLi171.I_{a_1f Di:~:;i_.'.r_ia;:t..
' 2. "M'5ham.ifi;§a1fsharmaaa.
S'/0 Abdui Khadar.
Ncmrvaaged aboui 46 yearss.
" ~ R/o 3"' Cross. N€'.h1'L1 Nagar.
V' , Ch7"LraclL11'ga City. .. RESPONDENTS
.__{B'y Sin. BL. Kunlar. Adv. for R. 1
, (LL. Devan-anda. Adv. for R2)
This l.\/Eiscellarieous First Appeal is filed Lmdei' secrtion 30(l}
of WC Act. zigaiiiist the judgment. ClE1l'.€ClZ 30.5.2008 passed in
WCA/CR.l\lo.l0l/200'? on the file of the Labour Officer and
Co111missi()ner for Workmeifs Compen.sat.i.on. Tumkul'. aiwarding
a oompenszition oE'1.90.,036/-.
This A;;)pea.l (..t<)1i't:'.1'ig on for adiiiission this (lay. the Court
clelivered the l"ollow1'ng: ' *
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal by the insurer, questiorttiig’-tiheilialoility
respect: of award dated 30%” May 20A08″pgassed<
101/ 2007 by the Corr1mi.ssionerV for Wori~:_1jhen's.'V_(Tompehs:tt.ioh.,u
Tiimkur [he1'einal't.e1" 1*el'e1"1'ed to as ~?tfl'1"e.Conimissioié_e1":}; 0
2. R€3SpO11d€I’1l, N0}Cl§lVllli:21_B.l;..”;’R€SpO1″iCl€l’l1. No.2 is
the owrier of the Vehicle. Respo_i1tlert'{- l\Eo~.~.ll ‘eQl_’-giifits that, he was a
loader 21n:t;lA loearing No.KA~05/Av2323 and
on 24.1.2007-jails t:he”;liiec:tioi}. of respondent. No.2, while he was
_Vtravelli13§glVi1:1.a lorl”ry.._lfoVr the purpose of loading and unload.irig of
.7.ti1hber_.mat- Jog:1li;«i:t the said lorry met with an accident and as a
result:-l’_of \)V’.?”ll’1’°(;?h. suffered grievous injuiy. lh support: of his
V evideiiee. he’ has produced the VV()i1I’1Cl eertil’i.eate and also the
‘f’ “I-ZF’léL”l.AiC,E§tl report’. and ftirther examined the Doctor. Doctor in his
‘e.Vicl_en.:?e:’ has stated that, claimant has soi’l’erecl blunt: injury over
thefight: side of fore arm. out i1’1jL1iy over the right. side of thigh.
iheise wound over the right” side of the temporal region and
\
«M
‘M –«”.”-77’
‘..;.a
multiple abrasion on the Chest 1’egi0n and also stated tlaat. there
are two l’1’aeI:.u1’es. Bast’-:.e.d on the smile. he assessed the disability
at 38% to the 1’igl11 wrist. and ezilciilated the l’unCti.0nal disability
at I-18%. The Conimissionei’ 1’elyi1’1_g on the evidence of t’l1e._ D0C’t0r
had takeii the loss of earning (‘apacity of the claimaiit
de1,e1*n1i1.1ed the (:0mpensat.ioi’1 at Rs. 1,590,036/~. l V
3. Sr1′.A.N.K1’ishnaswamy, learrie1’i
the insurer submitted that, the law 1’ecl}1eeiViI’e_el
treats the injured cl3.imar1l., steite index efiarnirigll
capacity with due regard tp. the IV1 1edli’c:21l”reAe0rdS; «:,IflQy\;ever, there
is no evidence of the 1088 Of earning
eapeiefly. He referred to Sgr.}Ie’dul’e»~I”;n”»;fesp’eet ‘elf eompensatiort for
the seliectule irijuijf arid :s«1;lI’j«:rV_1_itt.eg’i that, in case of amputation,
the claim-1ai’1’1__i’seemditjled”fer’–.5O53*E§ of the loss of ea:-hing capacity
and tliis -hei.ngul0hly-fra(:t7s.I’1’e to wrist’ and fibula and it is only
1’esth.rie’i:ed to rf1«:qverar1er1i5.ll”E’01” a temporary period. cannot: be more
tliari 2.0 Commiseionel’ without: applying mind has
err0neg)1.1s1y. £’iX’e:;:Elt,h.e loss of earning (tapactity at 48%.
A 4. the other hand, learned C0t.E1’1S€l appearing for the
‘ela-ir:’iahtf sL1bmit’i.eCi that, the Doetior has stated that there is 48%
Vf1,1_i1_(_TeliOi1£1l disability and taking these injuries and the avoeation
t/’%:lb%’,:
oi’ the elaiinani, Commissioner has rightly determined the loss of
earniilg (:apaeit.y.
5. The injuries r1’1e1’1tio.ned by the Doctoi* show that there is
fracture of right wrist. and also f1’aet.u’re of right fibula, ‘~.p{011bf..
the [)()(:io1′ states that there is 48% furictionail
arrive at 48% functional disability. Doctor
expiainecl as to how there .is 48% t’uhetions} Vihjuxfiesb T
alleged are i’1*act.ure to wrist zihd
makes the Claimant: to reduce of’
more than 50% or whetheslthe ‘.<5lE1iiti§1I'1ut:"neouiei i'ecoVer from the
injuries, though these explained by the
Doctor. howeveij, .i.t is fcgfuiidi'i.hat"~D€)et.o1*'s evidence is always
insufi'i(.:iei~;/ii". anti'5'._–i,he"4.Cc:~ui:2iissior1er aiso casually takes the
Doctors evizieiicéte mid'–deci.{i.es*t'he loss of earning capacity on his
own without. o'o.,e'1*e1gai4d to the medical opinion and proper
éisseessriiehi. Howeifer, in this case. looking into the
ei..1'ot,1._i-i1sii'.zth~;;eis,V ieilstead ()f1'e1I1.it.ti1'1g the n'iaE.t.er. the ioss of earning
e21p21e.1fi.y .is~rest.–riei.eci to 30% and the eo.mpe:isat.io11 is dhetermined
Rs.1,i8f'73/-.
Aecrordingly. the “appeal is partly’ allowed. The eiaimant. is
-.’_4V”e’n’t’ii.led for eompensatiori of Rs.1.1.8.773/W with interest C9 7i/2%
it from ihe date of petition till the date of jtidgnient and 12% from
-c” ‘?
{lie dzatc o{‘jL.1c1g111c>.m. fill payI11er1I or cie§)0si1T xvhic%he\»*e1′ is ea1r§;’.er.
The amm,zm in excess be reflmded to the il1SL13’€i”. To the extent
the C1a§n’1:«;”:mt. is entitled, the office di1*eCted 1.0 re.fLmd the sanle
to respc):1de111: N0. 1.
KNM/~