The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri Riyaz S/O Ibrahim Sab on 28 January, 2009

. , " Bgng§a1¢;*e VRegi'o:1a1__Qfiice

E

EN THE HIGH comm' op KARNATAKA AT Bmségigefia

DATED THIS THE 23% DAY 0;' JANUAE? 2éQ'§    

BEFORE'  

THE HONZBLE MR.JUs';':{:E é«RL;;<:1MA:{As:v;w§*¢ * 

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEQXL, NG."83f;§'1'~vO"F- 

BETWEEN:

The Oriental Irssurance Cu'-)§Ltd;; fj  'V
Having its r_;:g1:s1;¥.:*k*c:c1.V{i£7fi€,'_c at; , * V ' V 
"Oriental H£3L"i:3'-*3"; "1'&£ew"{}3ii';i__an&.v  '
its Bangalore *1?-;i;g;ioI:r.i;11..()'iTff1<:¢ Vat 

Leo Shéfipitzg"; Coifipléx,  

Nos. 44/ 45, R '._51d6ncy  CTOSS

Bangainre 4- 560 ~f}().I" ci3_1ly
Represersfied byV.1ts'~..I_I1a} Manager
Hubli Qivisgnai C")-ffiw isflow
Rtzprzzsenteci by its '

A -  . APPELLANT
   Sm-vri Raju, Advocate)

'HA1§iZ\'  A a.

Q Sri.  S/0 Ibrahim Sab
  "Muslim, "Male, Adult
' ..j"~»NdW..aged 22 years
' 'Residing at Biiiczhodu Gr:-zma

   Léavanagem Disfiict -~ 57'? 653

... RESPQNDENT

(By Sri: Aznbaji Rat) Najra, Advocate
Smt: Maha Vijayalakshxili, Advocate)

5/



C?

This MFA is flied under Sectian 30(1) _<:ef

against the Judgment an& Order datedfisfi/1 
passed in WCA N0. 138/2004 on the f1}<:__{)f-.:11€:_T.'La'br;1;2r.A2 

Officer and C0n1missi«:)r;er for Werimien' Céingjefigaiisn,
Davanagere District, Davaglagégrézg   _ [5,
Compensatian at" Rs. 1,61,28O/~":x4v'iLf1Ti:i1{e:%s2s£.at _I?.%._.  --.

This MFA coming o:fi _fGr 

the Court d('3}.iV€.'I'€d the fGli0w*h3g; _
  

This MisQ¢Han¢Qu$_  filed by tha
Oriental   undar Section
30(1) VofV"t1"1é¥':W0§;i%§Int3f3.%$"-  Act against the
judmént'  30.85.2006 passed in W031

N9. 133/ "   "316 of the Labour Ofiicer and

 '  _(143v§j;£i:r::issi<:*.:1er f{5:"'vV0rl<1nen's Cempsnsation, Davangere

  ».4D.r§v~;;mgere awarding cammnsation of

  with interest at 12% per ajimum.

' "   Parfies wfli be referred tea with reference: ta

  Mfitatus befere €116': Caurl: of Commissioner for

" ~ .  "'War}qn€n'3 Compensatjan.

3/



3

3. The contantion 0f the claimant heff'§t:het  regsnatien No.KA~

13/53:3 on ue.o$%,%A2Qo4k about 9.00 p.111. when the

lorry   Camp an Siruguppa Raad,

   turfflad .... anai cozzsequantiy. the claimant

 I :§:ViSf..ai12.¢€i  Iznmediately, he was shifted to VIMS

Hasgitai, 
   .' RespeI1ci@11t N92 --- Thc Insurance Company

V' V' .3133 objection statement denying 31} the avermrints

'   in the claim petition.

Ex'



:3

5. The sum and substance of tha fmdi1"ig

Commissioner for Werkmexfs Compensafio:2.TVV'i*S§  

zmdert

The Commissioner for Woi*k1'm_::i1's 

taking file income of the V  a%t%I::s.%%3.6:3é1'~kana"

considczring his age 3320  adéijjtixigvéreievant
factor 224.08 and   éammg capacity

at 40%, has a\a*§'a§;f(§ed   1,61,280/ --.

 __  by the same, the appeliant

has preferfed   

"   .._j.{'heA V S¥;:zi;staI1tia} qxxestion of law that has

  'wet;  this appeal is:

h 4_ "E. Whathér the COII12{11i$Si€)i"1€I'
{aired in hciding '£1131: the Claimant was
earning Rs.3,i}()0/-- per mcantli as 3
01331161' Withsut any Substantia}

evidence ta that effect'?

2' Whether {he Qammissiozzer.

ermd in hoidiflg that the Csiaimant had
6/.



5

stxsstaizzeé 40% 1035 cf  

capacity 3*"

8. PW'? is the dectoij sz_zhQ5?  the?

Claimant. He has stated: '31} his-._ §é'£*ide:*;:{:E:.;   

ciaimant has sustameci   leg and
there was swelling h,A<=:"--V_'back pain. X--ray
reveais that ¥:14)§;:fe_. wars"  and clavicle
berm wag   {}:§".53.2005, he has
exa1ni;m'3&'  the disability. Bones;
were ifxaf  finable ta stand and sit:

c0mf_o;r*tabl4'y~ f§Gf.a'V-.1oi1g t:i:In3. Taking intt} consideration

 "  -01"  aspectég 'fi"';ié doctor has stated in his evidence

  u   has got 45% disability to the

 

A1' beamed Counsel fer the appellant submitted

VA   the pemexiztage of disabiiity taksn by the

  fliommissioner fox' W0r1«:mez1's Cammnsation is on me

higher side. He further submitted that there is
2%



Ow

disability of 45% $0 the partictflar limb. N0m1a41§y_g:'-4.i_)'~»3"i

of the ciisabiiity is the total may disability;  

the total bedy disability is :5%,% 1'E3iif'vV'4L't::¥.€.»  I:'{.§£'§_.'§*'I'1('";',;V1"VV

Commissioner for Worklnexfs (llzgmgicérisatioii 

in taking 1053 of earning  =«-E-()9?"&V_e'ér;é1itlaé)ug11"' 

the ma: body disability is :;'a<zé{.f F

18. Learned   fag" '  respondent:
supports   V' 

I1; 2 "Un{i§:_f' "ia§9T:{<:iI*}e;:iI1eI1's Compeflsatiaxl Act, tha

basic principie is nof {fie anatomical existence of a part

.    piéi*siS€§:nw  disaypearance of part of its

'  " TIE: f¥.1j{}CtiOI1 as meant in tha Act is not

fufm:'a'.c:3;1  the physielogcal point sf View but fiom

  point: of view. This utility of thfi' part injmvd

  'E73315 -430 be aansidered in relation to the part it plays in

  -~--p§=:rf0rzni11g the functian which comprises the Wage

earrfing <:rapa(:ity. 'Thus far sash Ci)1E§€1'1S83.i0}ff1 there

Shouid be fuzictioxtxaé disability anti such disability
3/



should affect the wage earning Capacity. 

background, let us examitle whether the C(§inIfz;i$SiGQé1* 

for Worlgnezfs Compensatien tajfiztsg. film 1955  

capacity at 40%, evsn though tide  

stated in his evidence that  is%%d:%sa1:11:a:y'afk45é/0 'i:o 

the particuiar limb is :'cg)zTeci"br fiat"

12. In the instalfif. ¢asge,  has stated in
his evidenqei./iv     <':if' disabiiity to the
particuiatf  _ «It is the ccntention of the
learned" Ckauiiselw  appellant that {eta} body

disgbifity is "1   'Taking into consiéeration of the

:A0c<:i1;wai;iQn Raf the claimant and also the jrijmy and

 by the claimant due to the accident,

  Lk in  i21y*"-- 3;riér:i§?, the functienai disabimy that can be

V' " V,as;s2?;s$<=:5;ii in this case is 23%. Therefore, in my view, thfi

 :i3§s $ --9f earnirng Capacity is 20%. Consiéeiing the

" Wéccupation of the <:Iai:mant, the assassment of income 0f

the claimant 3%: RS.3,O0Of-- per month is reasmzabie.
gyf



Age 0f the ciaimant is 20 years and '{".h€I'€fOI'€:,. the

reievant factor is 2:24.80. Therefare, the  is

entitled for compensatiozl of Rs.8{),640/

g24.0o x :20/200). The cempgnsaa-.ia::~ * 

Rs.1,61,230/---- as awarcied 

W0rk:men's  

The claimant is entitlgd for  at  ammm

on the compensation ifiiarfi f§m.é'».t11onti1 fmm the

date  frat;-3 é:_.§ii.:'éé::-f deposit.

II".'¥.VV'Vi't3§.i».' V :t£Irge i3.b0ve éiscussien, I pass the

feixqgsfing:

ORDER

–;N§i.SL£§e11an€0us First Appea} is partzy

– ‘£113 Cfimpensatimz ammmt 0:” Rs. 1,51,:’2.8{1«/ –

H as awaztleé by the Commissioner far
Warkmefis Compensaiticsn is redtlaed £0
1?S.80,.640,f~. €/

C) The claimant is entitled for interest at 12%”

per annum on the colnpexisatiox}

fmm one month from the date…..’4′ ~ A
adjudication tjlithe date cefdeposit.

Ci) The excess amoumz, 3

refunded to the Ixisuxance . 2 V’ ”

6) The corapensation –;}ayei¥31::=> _ fhe
claimant shaIJ “‘-.be to the

cancemed Cemmissinrlézf _.f;;ir .AA.’;1&_’Qrlanen’s

_ é ‘ ‘ ‘ ,

Sd/–

Judge

%$V%” §