IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF' OCTOBER 201VOff,_ BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE H.BILI.A§I%A: if " M.F.A.NO.3287/200.19 (we): 4' ' BETWEEN: A The Oriental Insurance Company Li"mite§_1., Hassan, herein rep. by its ' Regional Office, _ 2;' A AL 'I No.44/45, Leo Shopping Complexfp Residency Road Cross, « " . BangalOre--56O _ By its Regional M::;rIag'er'_. ~ fg , ...AppeI1ant [By Sri Lingaraj, Adv.,} AND: ' A % % 1' 1. MOgaIf1nagOwIia.@* Ra-vi,'" S/O Natijegowda, - R/at Bijapur Colofiy, ._ » (V3h_i_kk.a Arakaiagudu Post, ' -._ Kasaba' I-Iirlobii, V r\ra1:a1agiidOuII=Taluk, Hassan Djsstrict. " ~ N.TR.srInIvas, 4* Maior, /-O. Rangegowda. R./0.K. E.B.ROad, % ..-Araka1agudu, Hassan District. ...Respondents
[By Smt.Kavitha.H.C., Adv., for R1
R2– Served)
*****3!=
This M.F.A. is filed under Section 30[I)__;t51″‘_
against the Judgment dated: 24.i2.20Qf3″”‘-gaasgseid T’
WCA/NF/CR-i06/2006 on the file of’ ‘th’e«Lai)o1ir:AQifioerTian’d
Commissioner for Workmen’s Comnpensgaetion}.
Division, Hassan, awarding cowmpensatiori of
with interest at 12% per annum.
This M.F.A. coming ” this day, the Court
delivered the following: i L” V» i ”
Heard._th.e’ for the parties.
2. Thi’s_appea1 directed against the judgment and
order passed by the Commissioner for
W’oVrktr1en’s-V,Coriipensatiori, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan. in
* VWCA/’N.F/CR.i*io. 1:06/2006.
V.
3
3. By the impugned judgment and order, the
Commissioner has granted compensation of ?’.2,54, 148/– with
interest at 12% p.a. from thirty days after the accident.V_:
4. Aggrieved by that, the
Company has filed this appeal.
5. In brief, the facts are:
The 1st respondent was working as ” a. driver i’nv”the”mini”‘
lorry bearing No.KA–l3..~Aw266——- lo_e.lo’nging to ./ithe 2nd
respondent. That on p.m., when
the 1st ;a¢sp’o1iden{h:t’l;V to Bangalore, near
Heggadihalli’-gat.e,l tlie No.AP–31–W-3588 collided
with the r:r=i,ni 18$ respondent. As a result of
1.51′ sustained injuries and claimed
conipeV11_satioVn…. ” Commissioner has awarded a sun: of
§’.~withllinterest at 12% pa from thirty days after
Aggrieved by that, the appellant- Insurance
C’crnpVariyArhas filed this appeal.
V.
6. The learned counsel for the appe1lant–Ins_1,1’rance
Company contended that the Commissioner has
taking the loss of earning capacity of the 151
50%. He also submitted that the doctorhas the ‘V’ ‘C
181 respondent has suffered disabilityloi inrespect’
right lower limb and in respect”‘~.of the the’?
disability 10% and the Co’mxmissioIie_r:’ llha’vE.»~taken the
loss of earning capacity atllllfiéfg that the
Commissioner at 12% per
annum from accident and the
Cornmissioner the interest at ’71/2 per
annum from till the date of award and
thereafter, ., at per’ from the date of award till the
oVf”‘payrhent.,&He, ltherefore, submitted that the impugned
judgement order cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned counsel for the 13*
‘submitted that the Commissioner on proper
cons.i_de–ration of the material on record has rightly taken the
loss of earning capacity of the first respondent at He
also submitted that IS’ respendent has suffered ._of
right femur, tibia and fibula and the doctor
the 13* respondent has suffered perrnanrent ciisabjiiityxof.f50%
in respect ef the right lower
Commissioner has taken the of the
first respondent at 50% wiiieh and therefore, it does
not call for interference.
8. I have__”ca:;ief11lij}’- Qconsidered’ t’her”subrnissions made
by the learned ‘partiesf
9. of law that arises for
_cor1sidera_tion is, “H/hetherttfte Commissioner was justified in
ig.sswofedrn.i1*1g”Capaeity of the 13′ respondent at 50%
and interest at 12% per annum from 30 days after
V ‘ the aeC€dent?’7 — t “1
IO.’ .. is relevant to note, the 15¢ respondent has
Suf:Tbr,ed””~fracture of right femur, tibia and fibula and other
6
injuries. The doctor has deposed that the 131 respondent has
suffered permanent disability of 50% in respect of the right
lower limb and the first respondent is unable to
activities. In his crosswexamination. the _
hicziupfiéfiy’
that the whoie body disability is 1
not assessed. The Commissioner:’»,has”talteri 0.
earning capacity at 50% Which”i_s~..o.n
circumstances of the case, it to loss of
earning capacity at 30%.
1 1. If the loss of at 30% and
relevant fa’ctor to 60% of the wages i.e..
?.2,400/–, then”, _ ‘V.’.c’o:rripensation payable comes to
1′,52,éi&i8′;v88 andvit-VisV__ro1..:nded off to ?.1,52,5oo/-.
. :12′, _El”he.4VAC~ornmissioner has awarded interest at 12%
days after the accident, which is not
corrects” Commissioner should have awarded interest at
date of application tiii the date of award and
at 12% per annum from the date of award tiil the
date of payment as held in Oriental Insurance Company
Vs.Moh.Nazeer reported in 2009 AIR SCW page V,
13. Accordingly, the appeal is V
impugned judgznent and order passed ‘
for Workmen’s Compensation, Hassani’S1,ib«~Dixfis’io:1,_Hassaiag.
in WCA/NF/CR.No.IO6/2006 granting
compensation of ?.1,52,5t):C};’f’ ‘~?:2,54tA,1VA¢i8/– with
interest at 71/2% from till the date of
award and from the date of
award till the id Ifit respondent is
permitted to deposit before this
Court to the extentithem balance amount, if
any, sha_1I_be refeiinded to the~..appe1tant- Insurance Company.
sar-
Judge