AND: 1 ' Bz5;LGA1_,:M,fi._ - 1.
~D.IVI._S§0NA£; MANAGER
4 _”*¥:H~E; ORIENTAL £NsURAN»;:E C0. £33.,
”.__”’$.H;aNBAG«.CH’AMBERs,
. K_R.1_LXJ_Si{A’R ROAD
« B§;LGzw M,
-1-
IN THE: i~iI{}H comm’ GF’ KARNATAKA c;Rcs1T..Vg-gimca
AT DHARWAD 1.
DATED THIS ‘THE 2913* my OF AUGUST, .2faiC;>i§” — A’
BEFQRE
THE HC}N’I3LE MRS. gJLJS’I’iA:¥;3]£1»::%3I’§’. N3xC;.A:%A’sfH:§’;n…A “T=.
M.F.A.N’€§%;%:449[i20_9;6«.’A1
BETWEEH: . ‘ ‘
BEEMAPPA YELLg;PPA, .§vZANDi. _
55 YEARS, V’
OCC;}~i:&MALi mow ;r’¢*1;<1,;«..';»– . V_ *
R] A'??? I~u1;1&LAD1';a; Nit, "N0w'.VR'/,z$r..a.3AL:KATr1
*rQ';' SAUN£3_A'lT_i–,…_ % " V »
¥i3iS'I';i..f?»ELG!%;U_N£;V'%A ' 3 '
1111 _ …Af-'PELLANT
(By Sri: LINGESHVVV. i<A'{*:?tz§d;g'i*:§"I1*,é'z:;f$'1%1; S V PRAKASH,
€¥§iDARAiv! ism, LAGMAPI32§"*?AD!§DALL{
A{'i?«_I:"1'£7€i~5, Y}?1_AR.S.,. V
0cCL;AQ.R'1s::{;'LTLERE, " – .
R/M’ NA{§:%N’OG.R GGKAK,
RESPONEENTS
-2-
(By 311 C.R.RAVESHANI~iAR as SRi.M.Y.¥{A’I’AG¥, ADVS, FOR
R2)
THZS MFA F’£LE£) U 1330(1) or w.<::. ac? AG£S§.§§'Sff"'-THE
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 39.9.o5…~.pAss:-:31.19:
WC,SR.:3{}['.2()0S ON THE FILE OF' THE LAf£'.'{}UR 'Gi~"E'§'{EE¥%
AND COMM¥SS§€)NER FOR W(I}RKMEN'SHCCJEvIP3?;NS!xTlG?§'i,
SUB-mvlszon-2, BELGALJM, __A.:,,ww_:§~IG"*–f:fHE:- 'cLA1rv'1
PETITION ma COMPENSATION '. ~ Ar€D.__"–.VSE'i3i{:I*x3G –.
ENHANCEMENT or CQMPENSATIOE; ..
This MFA coming on’jf¢–:__.A:3M-:.sS:0N=’§§1w.Jij:;aisV.d;s.y,%
court delivered the f11owi11g:’-.
&a,’§tcr iswfiisived for admissicn, with the
consé:1f’Qf’ia3r£{6:d ‘”C(;f;t 1I1€;tg_l 01:3: both sides, it is heard and
dispeséfii finV2¥}E§;. ._ S ‘
2,3 ” This appéél is iim by the mjzlred claimant challenging
ami Awarrd gzassttd by the W.{3.Commiss:i0ner
A {V -:2; §:;*vxii;’3§%.1\£;>…:so/2005 tiated 309.2005.
T1116:-.V.;t5’1evant fij{C1Z8 of the case are that the appellant
W310 was Warking as an agricuihual Cooiic in kactsrwtroiiey
. :s¢:-;;=;j;ug N0.KA~=23[T 7178 and ‘$7179 under the
g
.3-
instrucfigns of the first respondmzt and’, was returning.’i’%iii3:”§:*.’L’
sugar cane Sfifidfi fm-In Adibatra and in order no
buikzsck cart from the opposgge sistie, th§”éii’ivi=tr
med to avmd the samenswervfid the tractm” to the s2{ia..Qf ¢th§:”~.. ”
mad, and as 21 result of the same 11:11
the txactor and Sustained fra.c’tur:§.-:xfV «ax; left
side and (‘:(T}I}Il1Si(}I1 of left thiggh “é:;I: Qthcr izljuriss.
Cofitending that hchad s3:fi”t;re§.1 and
1035 of earning..c–a§ac§§§_._vfl1e4′: had filed thfi
claim pcfitégg xW.C,Act before the
W.C.Commiss’i+:j13.cr’9:Et’B§i1gaiImi’;”.. ~ %
“-‘E: f_E3§r; refit-séipt ¢3f”~!1QtiCfif in this said case the resspondant
N_1o’. filed his Wtittsn statement and a€imitteci
thré fiifitended that the said vahicie: was insured
with respondmzt who was liabie to satisfy the:
i2};2§*z:i1′{iJ.¢_ “I’he second msgaondentl insuraxace company
and filed its writtttn statement demying all the
~ Va33:3’gati0ns made in the ciaim petitien and sought for its
n u U dismissal.
/’
Rs.30{)O/–. Therefore, he requests this court to enhance the
coinperzsatioxx by considering the monthly income 0f the
appeflant at Rs.3(}C}0/ —.
‘.9. Per €,’.{);1fI’€:¥, it is submitted an behah9.Qft_’.,Vifi:s;1’1ranr:é’
compafly that there is no neeé to e§::ha:;3,r Iééséfining the
W.C.C<31I:missi0ner had :;g§<.§'c$ss:f(i _é~ar11i11g' capacity
at 79% and as the monmiy
income 0f the xapp6:fl%:::1tVV ._{iorfij;3i:3ation awarded by the
W.(:.Ce;n;riVvA_tg:; {iiS§3£1′:i’53’ the appczal.
Tlfié finly that arises for my considerafion is;
..f£§r’3.Z),€3§i’:£3,§§I’ the: ..\.v; {12 Commissioner was right in limiting the
of film appellant to Rs.2,0f:35/ –p.m?
-g..
company has not fiied an appeal challenging the
of loss of earning capacity, it would not be .
this cszmrt to reduce the said percentage and ~ ..
is retained aa per the order of *.:h¢3:=,W.(1..C..$i(31ie2*.’*-L__T11aA
Enhanced compensation $11311′ a’:_.arry irgtérest ;a’t rafs bf
12%) pa one mouth after tha the: by the
W , C. Commissianer a,’ . . ,. , from H 10 , 2005
onwards. Tim :1 of the
W.C.Gommiss§orjfe§:V1’is Iéft other aspects.
Out of the :3′ sum cf Rs.50,(}(}()/–
with ut$Vé’VCi;:positesd in the name: of
the ;9§r_iod of five years in my
Nafimanzeé: _an3~–, :z:.:{ appellant shall be entitled to
– §§item.s.::~c;n the said deposit. The baiance
be reieased to the appellant.
” . . ”’=’I’h.é: allowed in part in the abave aanns.
Sd/-