High Court Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Mr K Sadique on 9 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Mr K Sadique on 9 October, 2009
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Rs.1,10,502/~ with interest at 12% p.a. from after 30
days from the date of accident till deposit.

This Appeal is coming on for admission this day,

the Court delivered the following:

3 U D G M E N T

This appeal is byis that} insnranceglxcdmpanyl

challenging the quantum of compensaticn awarded"b§ the
Labour Officer & Workmensfl Compensation pommissioner,

-.

Chitradurga (hereinafter_ "referred "*£§ as The

Commissioner' for shortii ;,"fjF¢: the sake of

convenience4'Kparties§.are. referred to as they are

referred? tor in_ the _§;éim5 petition before the

commissionerq.,"

2. Briefi facts of the case are:

"t On 30.§f20Qg,when the claimant was driving the

' i¢:;y_ bearing" Reg.MED~7240 belonging to Respondent~2

“hérei5,Y;;h§” Lorry met with an accident and he

sustained injuries. Hence he filed a claim petition

‘V, before” the Comissioner seeking compensation and it

‘a§as* resisted by the insurance company by filing

u”v~statement of objections.

@%

3. The claimant in support of his claim has examined
himself as PW–l and the doctor who treated him as
PW-2. He has produced as many as 8 docu_:hen<tis'–VV which

are marked as Ex.P-1 to 8. The

examined its official as RW–_1,_y,V and pro'duced= insurance-..

policy as Ex.R–2(l).

4. The Commissioner afte”t;:”gonsiideringjt oralliiand
documentary evidencekon impugned judgment
has held that the ciataaht has established that he has
sustained \’5;¢é’i.def:;.£’V”‘occurred in the
course ofi. he is entitled to
seek the commissioner taking
note the nature of his job,

wages drawn,» nature injuries sustained by him and

the”‘~I:ii:siability”«stated by the doctor and assessing the

‘3,os3_ -._off’.._e’arning capacity at 25%, has awarded

taapenéationf of Rs.l,10,502/– with interest at 12%

after days from the date of the accident.

,VAgt_:;rieifed by the same, the insurance company is in

it gg

5. Sri.N.C.Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the
insurance company submits that the insurance company
in order to know the nature of injuries sustained by

the claimant in the alleged accident’ fmadef_ an

application before the Comissioneryseeking.direction

to subject the claimant fora exawination dby_ Medical_:

Board but it was rejected,\ Therefore he subeits that
the comissioner having ‘regectedb’the’Eanblication is
not justified invLassessifighE%fi¢ itttl of earning
capacity at 25% in “the labsengéfiéff evidence of the

doctor to thatKeffect.g–5

6. With regard to awarding of interest at 12% after
30 days’ from _tr4é«..da.tiétA..§’a:. award, he submits that it is

contrary to thegjudgfient of the Supreme Court in the

cas_’e5′.:. QRIEI§’i’AL ____ INSURANCE co. LTD. Vs. MOI-ID. NAZIR

he’A$D,ANQTHE3f{A.I.R. 2009 S.C.W.–3717). Hence he prays

to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and

award fiassed by the Comissioner.

sq

“rip, h§Per contra, Sri.Madhukar Nadig, learned counsel

ll abpearing for the claimant submits that the claimant

apart from examining himself as Pwml has examined the

fig.

:,u

do not propose to interfere with the said finding of

the Comissioner.

10. The doctor who treated. the claimant Whas” issued

the disability certificate stating’ thatf thew claimant

has stained 25% disability to the limhfx *He_has,pot’

stated the disability caused! toh’the_*who1e;,hody? and.d

what is the loss of earning capacity sestained by the
claimant on account of the ifijuri sestained by him in
the accident. Of cohnse in the absence of evidence of
the doctor to that effect itflnat not he proper for the

Comissioner to assess the.loss_of earning capacity at

25%. “Instead. St” teeandifigw the matter on technical
groundsf to ‘theicConmissioner for re–consideration,

considering the materials available on record, it is

« just and proper to assess the loss of earning capacity

heat 15% as against 25% assessed by the comissioner. If

that i§”s§ ‘the compensation works out to Rs.66,3OG/–

2. (4056 x shrine = 2400 x 184.17 x 15/100).

‘ii,v2With regard to awarding of interest at 12% p.a.

V7_ “after 30 days from the date of the award, the matter

is covered by the judgment of the Supreme court cited

supra.

12. Accordingly the appeal is allowed. Judgfient and

award of the Comissioner is hereby medifiedlq ‘The

Claimant is entitled for a total compensatibfi of 35.

66,300/~ as against Rs.l,iQ,5Q2féh;awarded,rhyd the d

Commissioner with interest at 7.5% p.atWfrom the date
of claim petition till the date of award and 12% p.a.

from the date of award till the date of nafment.

13. In view of the defiosit of the entire amount of

compensation by the insuranae comfiany while preferring

the appeal, series is directed to calculate the amount
payable to the slaimant as per this order and refund
the balance amount if any to the insurance company.

_*§Claimant ‘is _____ “permitted to withdraw the amount

dg before this court itself.

‘ 4″ * -. “R./1.2 1 009”

.’._Noherderias to costs.

Sd/~
IUDQE