C""*ASSOCI.ATES) '
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED TIIIS THE: 25?" DAY OF AUGUST, 2010
BEFORE I
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPA..§i;INI'I.:'EEC"
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL,.NO_.529'/2055.{WC}.
M.F.A. 530/2005, 531/2005, 532 /2005:1533'/'I2I)O5&'~534'/:IO()53??f_I}A.3C';).II"A I'
IN I\/I.F.A. NO. 529/2005:
BETWEEN:
UNITED INDIA INSURAN«CE ;
COMPANY LTD., BELLARY, '
BY ITS REGIO_NA__L OFFICE, " I
UNITED INEJIA ",1.N'SURAI\ICE A
COMPANY * I I
SHANI?AR.NARAY'ANA.,BUILDING,
1VI.G. ROAD,
BANGALO'REi--56O 001';"
REPRESENTED, BY ITS
I D'H3PU:TY IIIANAGILN'. APPELLANT
N. S. (COMMON)
I '{1x3'i/--'.I'SI52[:'I.'A..MCI/ENKATESH, S. SRISIIAILA 85 PB. RAJU
ESHWARAPPA
/OSHARABAPPA
..----AGE. 48 YEARS,
E
.943
OCC. EX~DRIVE'.R,
R/A. KUDITHINI,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
2. K. MALLESHI
S/O. ANJENAPPA
MAJOR,
R/A. RAYADURGA ROAD,
GUGGARUHATTI,
BELLARY TALUK 85 DIST.
. . . Rfi--S'i5'OVi\?:DfF4f'1'\E§1'A~.»
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY %SAAI~IUI<AR,A ;:fAGAIDI.SHP4 " ~
GOUDA PATIL, ADVS. FOR R1) I ~
MFA NO. 529/2005 IS EII,.ED U,IS'I30(I) 'OE'
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED"--.04/1"1_/2004_v IN3
NO.WCA.33/2004 ON THE FILE LABOUR';:OFF'ICER
AND COMMISSIONER FOR WQ--RKME..N'S COIMPENSTION,
SUB DIVISION»;II,_13EI';LARY,AWARDIVNG COMPENSATION OF
RS.1,34,30O /- wITTHI'i.I INTERES.T AT 12% PA. FROM
21 /01/2004 TILL '"["1?1j'I3+ i.)ATE""O'F" DEPOSIT AND DERECTING
THE APPELLANT HE_REIN_"FO"'D.EPOSIT THE SAME AND THE
APPELLANT PR-AYS TO SE/F...;5ISIDE THE ABOVE ORDER AND
TO REDUCE. THE"CQ'MPENSATION.
"IN S430/2005 ;
% RESI"-"~*.}IA., ERO'M~2.1'/01/2004
TILL THE DATE OF' DEPOSITTAND DIRE<:TIN~O_ THE APPELLANT
HEREIN TO DEPOSIT THE SAME 'AIKIEJ fE'HF}_'VwAP1?ELLANT PRAYS
TO SET ASIDE THE»ABOVE-»OED'ER,_ANv_DfTO REDUCE THE
COMPENSATIIIONQ"t;n'
IN M.F'.A. I\1I"O4§31,/:2'(§'O$: 1:' "
RESPOND_I:3NTS'~~:
gjlj _ H.A'Nil.MAIAH ---------- A "
._ ' 'S/O.I§IA.O..A'PPA
'-QC-C. EX'_:HPx;MALEE,
R',-(A. G-UGGARAHATTI,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
'ff '-2' ,1 ''K.». Ix/IALLESHI
ANJINAPPA
'MAJOR,
___7R/A. RAYADURGA ROAD,
3
4 2
<3;
SH
GUGGARUHATTI,
BELLARY TALUK 8:. DIST.
(BY SR1. HANUIVIANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, JAGA.D}$H
GOUDA PATEL, ADVS. FOR R1)
MFA NO. 531/2005 IS FILED U/S 30(1) OE W;C';----..A'CTI--,
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/11/2004 "'-PASSED 'IN
NO.WCA.36/2004 ON THE FILE OF THESILAEOUR"OEfEICERAND"
COMMISSIONER FOR wORK1vIEN'S" CO'1\{1PE3NSTI(}N, "SUB
DIVISION}, BELLARY, AWARDINC%._ C'O.NlPENSATIOI\I'*---..
RS_79,500/- WITH INTEREST ATV12% FROIVIj_I 2'1/'O1',--'.'2004,
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT AN;-'3 DIRECTINGV THE I.£5s.P..PEI;1LANTVVE'
HEREIN TO DEPOSIT THE SAME 'AND, THE'---AFRE1:.LANT"'PRAYS
TO SET ASIDE THE ABOVE ORDER AND TOREDIJOE THE
COMPENSATION. 'A "
IN M.F.A. NO. 532/2005: I
RESRONDENTS
1. GANt.}APPA"7?'._--I
S/O. EASARRA I' _
AGE. 35._YEARS, "
OCC. EX.EHAIVIALEE3«,_ I *
R/A. 'OUGGAR.AI~IATTI,
' ' BEILLARYDISTRIOIT.'
' K; 'MAI,LE'S-H'I---.
.8';/__O. A.NqIII.ARRA
MAJOR, ' I _
R/A. RAYADURGA ROAD,
GUG~GA;RUHATTI,
I. 'BE_LLA'RY TALUK 85 DIST.
I '(E':='SRI. IIANUMANTIIAREDDY SAHUKAR, JAGADISH
PATIL, ADVS. EOR R1)
E;
MFA NO. 532/2005 IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04/:1/2004 PASSED IN
NO.WCA.38/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMRENSTIONQ-«.SUI3
DIvISION--1, BELLARY, AWARDING COMPENSAT_IO.N~«, 'OF
RS.92,300/~ WITH INTEREST AT 12% RA. FROM _2..I_,_;'0C1',+.2DG<§
TILL THE DATE OF DEPOSIT AND DIRECTING THE-:_ARREjLL_ANT'
HEREIN TO DEPOSIT THE SAME AND THE APPELLAN'FR.PRAITSO
TO SET ASIDE THE ABOVE ORDER AND TO""REijIj3U"CVE'--ITEE'* I
COMPENSATION.
IN M.F.A. NO. 533/2005:
RESPONDENTS :
1. SRINIVAS
S /O. KUBERA,
AGE. 26 YEARS, H
OCC.EX.HAI/IALEE, I _
R/A.
EELLARY DI:_STRICf’?.
2. K. MALLEJSHII ‘
S/O. ANJINARRA, ‘
MAJOR, I
» R /A;. RA’1’ADUR’GA__..ROAD,
“GU’C~OAVRUH_ATTI,
I BE;LLARY_’1″AL£JK & DIST.
IEYAFSRI; II¥¥§jI§II$?’I}MANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, JAGADISH
I VI.(;OUDA*RATTL, ADVS. FOR R1)
MFA NO. 533/2005 IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT
‘._””AGAII\%ST”‘~«.THE ORDER DATED O4/11/2004 PASSED IN
«,;_’NO,wCA.380/20o4(OLD NO. 362/2004) ON THE FILE OF
fj*TI_%IE §LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
%
6
WORKMEN’S COMPENSTION, SUB DIVISION~I, BELLARY,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.1,00,800/»« WITH
INTEREST AT 12% P.A. FROM 21/O1/2004 TILL THE DATE
OF DEPOSIT AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO
DEPOSIT THE SAME AND THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO SET
ASIDE THE ABOVE ORDER AND TO REDUCE __ THE
COMPENSATION. 7
IN M.F.A. NO. 534/2005 :
RESPONDENTS .-
1. MARANNA
S /O. VENKATESH,
AGE. 19 YEARS-,
OCC. EXLOADER,
R/A. KORLAGUNDI,
BELLARY TALUK 85 DIST.
2. K. MALLESI-II
S /O. ANJ’INAfE_PA:IIIiIf”
R /A. RAYADURG’ IIj;R.OA_I3,.
GUGGAR’LIHATT”I, I .
BELL-ARY TALUK 8:, DIST. .. RESPONDENTS
V” (ERIE SRQI”; I-IA.NUI\/IANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, JAGADISH
OOIIOA ‘PATi_L’,.I ADVS. FOR R 1)
“M.I¥.’A’N.O.’I-“.’S3%I/’S2005 IS EILEI) U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT
‘”A’GA1NS’F.__ TI~IE.,ORDER DATED 04/II/2004 PASSED IN
_”=…NQ..WCA.381″/«.2004(OLD NO. 363/2004} ON THE FILE OF
LABOUR ORRICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
; ‘1._”W_0’~R_’KME*N’S COIVIPENSTION, SUE DIVISION~1, BELLARY,
-.j;~_’AWIARDINO COMPENSATION OF RS.1,05,400/– WITH
‘ .’iT~INTEREST AT 12% RA. EROM 21/O1/2004 TILL THE DATE
‘ I OEEEPOSIT AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO
I
DEPOSIT THE SAME AND THE APPELLANT PRAYS TO SET
ASIDE THE ABOVE ORDER AND TO REDUCE'””–,THE
COMPENSATEON.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLO’WING: ”
JUDGMENT”
in ail these appeais, the insurane’e_ eon1pan.y_*v_tIs”befoifethiisg
Court assailing the quantum of corf:pe11sation*– as”VaiA*arOdediiiby the
Commissioner for Workmen’C_ompe’nsat:ioni”in resi;i3e’Ct'”of each of
the claimants. The claimant’Natl–EshWajiap§javii(WC No.33 / 2004)
was the driver of the–},ie’hie1(i:; the”~e1ja.iVnianti No.24-ianumaiah
S / o Ramaiah of the vehicle. The
ciaimants (WC No.36/O4),
Sri.Gangappiav give’ N}§_.’:i.3’i”i’3fV’/’v.Ci)’«i}.:ies. the said vehicle. In respect of the
aeeid_entT.W’hiVChViioeiczdirred on 21.12.2003 all the claimants are said
A have ,siiffer_ede:iiVnj:uries in the accident and as such the claim
.._i¢C’_’«.p.etit_ions wexfefifiled. The Commissioner on assessing the loss of
‘i_:”ear”ni’11gihapacity at 40%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 30% and 30%
. i-i:j”iresf)eci;ive1y, has awarded the Compensation.
3
A
2. In the above background, the contention in the
present appeal is that the loss of earning capacity as assessed by 4_
the Commissioner is highly exaggerated. In this regayrdrjit is
contended that the doctor who was examinedj”‘b’efo_re:
Commissioner is not the doctor who had treated theV_c’laini.a11.ts. I”L–«..
is further contended that he was also not a bQirtl.1o’ped,ic’–.dio*ctori
1′
could not have assessed the disability in’ niani9i.erviidone;.
order to substantiate the said contention’ it is out, that the
disability certificate issuedvhyi-i_the_’lsaiidi” and evidence
tendered are in fact contrary :09 t_hc.r”woun’dihicertificate which had
been issued by the§Prirnary }F__IeagIth’iCenter”Wh_erein claimants were
taken that regard, reference is
made to the is, therefore, contended that the
cornpenséllinn awalfléd to”‘bei”reduced.
3V. Thee “‘learnediimCounse1 for the respondenbclaimants
howe_very_eseek_is»–to” the award passed by the Commissioner. It
contended that’_- the claimants were thereafter treated in VIMS
-ii.i’.j’:§~Iosp.ital, Bevllary, and the doctor has issued the disability
certificates] and has tendered evidence before the Commissioner
. has looked into at} the documents and physically examined
E
is
9
the claimants and has thereafter sta.ted the disability. As such,
the Commissioner after arriving at a finding of fact has assessed
the ioss of earning capacity and as such, the same does note,aii_for
interference.
4. In the light of what has beencontended ‘since =
entire issue revolves around only the fact re;-iatiingesto-.th’e
as stated by the doctor and the -loss of_earniiig”fcapacity
assessed by the Commissioner, this a’spect of thaniattefr requires
to be noticed. In this regard-,._perusal,of.,_t’he”‘order passed by the
Commissioner would indicate gthat the iC;o–rnmissioner has
considered this white ajiasweringpoint’ no;’2″w1=i’ich had been raised
for consideration. V Iirivifaddi.tion,.i’tothe evidence, which had been
tendered by theigiaimantis,th.ei”_,Commissioner has also taken note
of, the evidence of doctor Lakshminarayan who had been examined
be_fore:’t.he Cornrriissioner. In fact, the statement made by the
doctor. before the ‘Commissioner has been verbatim extracted in
reiation eachof the claimants. A perusal of the same would no
ixidicaite, that the doctor has stated that he has referred to
treatnient records of VIMS, Beilary, and thereafter he has
i eitarriined them. On noticing the nature of injuries, thereafter, he
i
53%
EU
has stated the percentage of loss of earning capacity. In fact the
commissioner has reckoned the same ioss of earning capacity
which has been stated by the doctor.
5. It is no doubt true that in normal circum_s’tiance’s;p:’when ~
the Commissioner takes note of the evidence avaiIabiei’_’before.hirnif”
and thereafter comes to his conclusion the s.ame Wou’1di’E:a’ve’it–toi’i’be
considered as finding of fact and ‘wou1dii’~haveV tot’db-e.<a.rcVcepted.–.iL'
However, in the instant case, the iearne:E:Counsei the fappeiiant
with specific reference to the._d'Jcun1e;nts"arvaiIa1;)ie on record has
showed to this Court that the_e.v.idence tepnd.ereid~..'by-"the doctor itself
cannot be accepted enti'retf,t_ and theinomconsideration of the
appropriate to the conclusion by the
Comrnissioneriitself perversity so as to call for
in_tVerferencie ibty this that itself wouid be treated as
sus_§ia:m.ii;;1i of law.
Kg . Haviivngiipioticed the said contentions, it is necessary to
i7__refer to the certificates which are avaiiable at Exs.P.7, IO,
23_and EX.P.26. A perusal of the Wound certificates would
‘that only in respect of the claimants Eshwarappa,
E
3
li
Srinivasa and Maranna they had suffered fractures and had
undergone treatment for the same. In so far as clairhailts
Hanumaiah S/o Ramaiah, Hanumaiah s/o N.a’g–apipa,v:.r:i”
Gangappa, what is indicated is that ther__e…ar_e no;ieirtiertivaliiinjuries ii
but they are suffering from low back pailn. tiftlie ‘said
are noticed and in that context the e_Vi’d_ence itendered bfiidtheoood-octor’V L’
is perused, in so far as claim ofi?Ramaiah
and Hanumaiah s / o same is wholly
exaggerated. ln so far,_as even though
they had ‘iivould indicate that
subsequent to disability but not to
the extent ae.:iVstated’b_y Therefore, on noticing the said
documents and ualso the_.i;”f1juries and keeping in View the
avocation of ..eachiiiof..it_he the appropriate percentage of
Ioiss of eaVrniing”Capacity have to be reckoned by this Court.
7; .’–.,i’lnV’rnyi’;{ziew, in normal circumstance, the re–
Tiuassessmenit shouiidi have been made by the Commissioner himself
4. is long lapse of time the same would not be
and as such from the documents noticed above that itself
andasseissment is to be made with regard to the loss of earning
E”
E
<
€
6'4
capacity, taking into consideration the normal compensation that
would be awarded even in Motor Vehicle case in respeé'ti._"o€.'the
nature of injuries indicated herein. The same itself C'
as a basis to workout the loss of earningJca.pacityi iniieaeh of these i
cases and keeping in View the ultimate diSabfi_1'i"[395 with
compensation.
In that View, the loss of of the
driver Eshwarappa, taking fracture suffered
would be at 25%. If the said .per.centagei’_oi. is taken into
consideration he of Rs.83,895/– as
against the sum
In the who was working as
Cleaner the taken at 10% and if the
compensation is doubt’-would be entitled to the sum of
ais:ag’ai&nst fiat’ is awarded by the Commissioner.
‘v:ifvi.I}I’ainumaiah s/o Nagappa, the loss of earning
C ii”AA.capacit3r’i,sito beiireoiustoned at 10% and the if the compensation is
out heivivould be entitled to sum of Rs.31,800/– as against
‘i.:_the_ siim,aWarded by the Commissioner.
Mi
?
Le’
in so far as the claimant Gangappa also the disabiiity is to
be taken at 10% and if compensation is worked out he be
erititied to Rs.30,741/– as against the amount a\Va.fded.~.b3;’v:~iiF1€
Commissioner.
in the case of Srinivas, the Ioss eairr1ingi”._ca1paoityisto
reckoned at 20% and if the compensatiori._is”worked_”_oiJt he wo’L11id
be entitled to Rs.6’7,167/~ as agaii’1s:t=the theii
Commissioner.
in the case of Maranria,ea.irfi–§fi:gViiioapaCity is to be
taken at 20% and:..ii’Lt1*i-e out the same
would be in a sigimiigf éigairist what is awarded by
the Comrnissiorier.”
8. Hence, Cqrrlpensation awarded by the
Commissioner stands reduo’ed to the said extent.
i_.f1’~ so far asimthe grant of interest, there is no dispute
thaitt._eiieIiithe’preserit_:.nature of injuries can be considered as non-
C”-~=’scheduIe_ir1juri.esiarid therefore, the claimants would be entitled to
~ i.i’_j’:ir1te’r,est at 7%/2_i% from the date of petition till the date of award and
1«.2%i_there_3fter. The reduced compensation with interest in the
V g» ‘M Wm
14
manner stated above shall be worked out and the amount shall be
disbursed to the claimants.
The amount in deposit shaii be refunded to the appellefit. It
is stated that the amount is in deposit before the
The Registry to secure the same to this Bench
amount accordingly.
Ah the above appeals stand ‘idi_iS”posedA’ef:in
No costs.
«mi
$3 $3 .
K1? gfe.
i
M
sub/–