High Court Karnataka High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs D H Divakar on 25 September, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs D H Divakar on 25 September, 2008
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL_G.R,IE__

DATED ms THE 25"' DAY or SEPTEMBEB..2TI§§?S'__'  I' 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MI-{JUSTICE K.N,I§ESHAVRNfiII§AY#INvAV  I  I

MISCELLAN EOUS FIRST APPEAL I¥Ia.37"1_5i'2AU0S(3J\is£?)
cxw    g A  
MISCELLANEOUS FIRSTAPPEALANa.42s2;2DD5(wc;-I 

IN MFA NO 3716 OF 2005

BETWEEN

THE ORIENTAL INSURANQE COLTD I "
HAVING ITS R£csD..I=I=;IcE AT: _  
ASAP ALI ROAD, Itgjsw D'EE_I-3.I   I 
AND ITS 8IX_NGAI_QR.E REG_§O--!s§Ai'.-J GI-'_'FIVC_f'E
AT LEO 8H£3PP;fN_G c.$$.,_ I ~ 

 

BANGAILORE«5€:'O0O1'§V ' _ 

  I    I I ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.'-M SOWRI Te.zaIVu,T5Ds;.;I-
AND:  I I I I 

DHDIVAKAR  TTTTT 

 I  TsIO;I~I.H;IIIaIu?IIANTHA?= PA
 HIVNDU, -I91}-'~.~I,E«,IAE1UL'3'
= _R;'A,.VET9A'[ATHI.NAGAR

  I T (av SRf.vD'1-R NAGARAJA, ADV.)

I-i~S.R'I'fiJR 'Tc::wN "
CH'§TRAD£J.RG;~X 5?: 311
  *  RESPONDENT

IVI”IT~TTHIs MISCELLANEOUS FIRST 2′-WPEAL Is FILED uss
. am; ~<::~r~' w.c. ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD

DATEEE 25f0'§!26G5 PASSED IN WCAfCR.NO.128I"20€I4 ON THE
I -FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER ANS COMMISSIONER FOR
".WORKM€N'S COIDPENSATION, CHITRADURGA, AWAREDING
" COMPENSATION OF RS.1,76,98Cif- WITH INTEREST @ 12%

RA. AFTER 38 DAYS FRCBM THE DATE OF ACCIDENT TILL THE
DATE OF DEPOSIT & DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO
QEPOSIT THE SAME,

6/

F'-..?

IN MFA NO 4252 OF 2005

BETWEEN

D H DIVAKAR
5:0 M HANUMAMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS :

VE£)A1fATHI NAGARA, HIRIYUR
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT    _ I '  
 _k   
{BY SRLD R NAGARAJA, ADV.)      

AND:

1 ms ORIENTAL INSUF_gi\Nf_»’.E”‘CO_.LTDf’»..
svrrs BRANCH M.AN,AGE’R r”

SHARADAgCQMP§;EX. E – _
cw KSR1′{§,B’US’3TrWQ
s 9 RGAI},fi}H’I.TRA£11URGFx”DISTRICT

2
3:0 K’R£é;NGA’?PA I
25gGE_D Ascw 50_Y’EA’.RS’ I
OWNER OF A(_5THOR’iC4K’SHAW KA 16 5930
RXOVVVEDAVATHIA N-AGARA, HIRIYUR
CHITFEA DU RQA LEISTRICT
~ .__ ‘ RESPONDENTS
(BY ‘s;:R|,M scwm ADV. I-“GR R’!

I T”I’~Ic;tiE:c*.=. td iezdispensed with)

FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UES

30(f.)__ ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARE}
DATED 25.1.05 PASSED IN NO.LO.WCA.CR.’I28i04 ON THE

WFILE OETHE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
I’ :’E»V,WOR_KMEN’S COMPENSATION. CHITRADURGA, PARTLY
VALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND
. EEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEALS COMING ON

IFOR HEARING THIS BAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

W,

due, The question as to when compensation under thVcv’t%ct.fal!s
due for directing payment of interest as conten§pintgc__’__icrsgtcr_
Section 4(A).(3) recently came up for conside.ratt§n.Vv
Hon’bEe Supreme Court in National ‘inn;

Muabasir Ahmed reported in MR 20é?._Si:.f20$:.in.:Para;S-. ‘i”nc’g

Apex Court has cbserved thus; ‘V

” interest is payacn undcr”‘Séci§cn’tt4tA(3) ‘;’:’t2=;e.%:-.- is
default in paying tné.ccmpnnnaficn under this Act
within one month frcn’:..Vti:c§_V ::§’ate;¥’~-.1?’ due. The
question ‘Vat’: nanrfnyg nncéfseécticizt. {I-A “was dean with
by this in ~vfi.§§a_g71i:a..r $«s’n;§n ‘ v’.:”§}nsnwant Sing}:
megs (9);§3’cc “134,;i§”5.’ie;g nrnehniég Act 14 of 1995,
sect:;an}z5¢A t5f’fi.;tf?e)1ict”wa3’éniendec£ inter afia, rim;

the m;n;:n§n:1’jt:ate»ofintegtén to be sfznpfe interest at
12%; L’ -tn tnn ‘fn$rnnt”_;tcasc, the accident took pface

_ aftc-r nntendmérzt cnaf. therefore; the rate of 12%

_ gt; by ibetnsgn Court cannot be fainted. Eat the
A V .. _ pcrf0d.nc~«f:xed by it is wrong. The starting point is on
.’ one month from the date on which 4% feff
dn;=3..”c:i7,}b::sr;c:zsI}’ E’ cannot be the date of accident.

V -Sinceno indication is there as when at becomes due,
A. , c as tn be taken to be the date of acfiindicatxcn of the
H v. rcfaim. This appears to be so because Section 443(1)

prescribes tnat cornpensatsbn under Section 4 shat!
be paid’ as scan as 3? fans due. The compensaticn
becomes due cn the basic of aczgfudtcation of the cfaim
made. The adjudication under’ Section 4 in some
case: involves the assessment of bsc of naming
capacity by a quaiified medicaf practéfioner. _ig_n;;_ie____cs

c

Cammissiener. The amount deposited by the insurer at’4thVéf: » £:’i:E1:,e of

fiiing the appeai is ordered to be transferred ta
Workmen’s Compensation Ccsmmissioner so as L’hAin*s».
make payment” The amount ifany éfijlef Z
daimant shail be refunded to the.En4su?é4f;—A.:”‘ .’ ‘. V ‘. ‘V

MFA No.4252!2E305 is heréi33:V:VVTc”i3misse’i3_V_

mv*