< 'Major in age,'
1
MFA N0. i77f2OG6
IN TEE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATES TRIS THE 26TH mv OF NOVEMBER :2.Qi3sff ~ _
BEFORE
THE HOBPBLE rm. msrxcs K. ;BJi"{AKftI-iAV;&.'i$:s;g;,,;;.i'.~
MXSCELLANEOUS §'1RsTTVAPP;é»..L»';*:§.377j:2§{)'o5«. "
BETWEEN:
The New India Assurance Co. L_td.,
Divisicmai Oficc, V
Bclgaum,
Thmugk Regional Ofiice,
P Kalinga Rae Road,
Bangalc-re--27.
By Duly constitufcd
(By Sri I)ata1",V Adv;;"f<;_o§: apf:e1jaz1 t}
3. vi£::=:n¥'
_ S'[ {3
f 0 -Shivaji '
" " 1
éf.' Asz§¢1a_S"5«4avarkar,
in age',
Mavarkaf: Petroleum,
V Kaflhiargi Road,
. _ ' L L 4_ 'r-€Ac:,a_'.:j' Kanakaéasa Cimlc,
Belgaum.
(By S V Prakash, Adv., for Rwl)
(By Sri Ravish Bfiiliifli, Adv, for R-2)
Appellant
Re: spondents
IVIFA No.177:'2G06
2
This Misceflaneous First Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, against the judgment and order ciateci
17.10.2005 passed in WCA:SR-124/ 2004 01:: the file of the Commissioner
for Wor1<men's Compensation Sub--Division 2, BeIgaun1;'éiWat*ding
compensation of Rs.63,158/--- and directing the appel3antV~.h£:rein. to
deposit the same. _
following:
JUDGMENT 4
The appellant] insurance Compaii§=.:ls»before' this for
setting aside the impugned orfderldatetll '15?51é';A2o0s asadél in WCA:SR--
124/ 2004 on the file of the Compensation,
Belgaum. _ AV _ 9 i
2. ¥3ou}jsei:"-fe'1* submits that respondent
Nos.l and 2 respondent No.1 claimed that
zespendent .gf\f§§:’>.’2 i.’srothe1-fires his employer and he was working as helper
in the he alleged to have sustained fracture. But, the
1.,,mspond’ent’l’._l’§.e;1 proved that he was a Werkman zmder the
VV3:esfio_ndent””‘No.2’ that he sustained alleged fracture during the
U empleyihent and out of empleyment. It is also submitted that
tile tespgendeiit No.1 has not proved Wages that he was getting
f~’§sll:;a’3{).(}.;;–~ per month and he sustained pezmanent disablement to the
40% though the Medical Oficer has deposed that the workman
has disablemefit to the extent of 20%.
L\/
This Appeal coming on for healing thisday,
MFA No.17?/2986
3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Iesponfiem No.1
submits that there is no illegality 01′ ixlfirrnity in the ~ V.
4. When the matter had come up for’5iiimi$giez;1
iearned Single Judge of this CourtVhasb’:’::1e1z:iae._1{fied ‘:2g.§.é;’~Appgg;1;_.Aj’T+;;m A’
substantial question of law has not been:fo1muié1te,d;
S. In View of the grounds, urged,___fhe__s%1bstae1’t§a1_’Aq2;§istion of law
that arises for consideration in fifiéer:
Whet1;e:~%the.VV{1x$:;afiii:s§;io:ier was guseified in fixing
the wagee “e.f’ the msmnaent No.1 at Rs.1,800/~ and
‘t}:1a’:§;.c’1V”2;1;3.’*:’1i1g ieouzse of employment and out of
V f c1;i:»x§1o_yifie3:i§:;«._._he seefained mjuxy which resulted in
f3t3’L!’f${:¥!::1:t:J3:’£’v V’C1;i::’5§’§’I:1)1Cmf3Il{ ‘£0 the extent of 40% and
é=.§&*fiing ebgefiensafion as per the impugned oreier ?
‘<':i_, Merely respondent Nos.1 and 2 are brothers is not a
£0 contend that there was no workman and empieyer
'A between the respcndexzts herein.
‘«. V7L”Resp0m:1ent No.2 hag filed objecfions admitting some of the
..”V,e~’sz’e1;;’ii.1ents 0f the application and denying that there was 11:) grievcus
injury etc. In support of the ease cf the workman, he has got him
MFA No.1’F7l2{)(36
4
examined as P.W~1 besides examining Medical Ofiioerf Dr. S R Angadi as
P.W-=2. P.W-2/ Medical Omcer, who assessed the disahie1x:Iie_t};t._V of the
workman, has assessed at 20% with Ieference to
the Commissioner has fixes permanent disablement.at_A’%i0f’2E§A.i$§¢«ithoi1t
basis. The Commissioner was justified in fixinguwage-s of’ii1e-wofkiiian at, ‘_j
Rs.1,8{}O/— and that he was a Worktgian iizfiier theiv-:’eAspond1eiit N072
herein and during the course of employxiient and~.oiit ti-éiispioyment he
sustained the grievous inju1§3*;..¢_ “.or.fesu_1t’eVt’1’A permanent
disablement.
8. Thefe is Appeal to the extent that the
Commissioner compensafiou fixing permanent
disabiement; ‘a-a,49°,»£ of 20°/o. Accordingly, the substantial
(2}1Ji.f§S-V1Z1i()TI1′ .f_o’1mi71!stes«for consideration is answered partiy in favour of the
9’
9. Isithe the Appeal is partly allowed and the impugneci
– is holding that the respondent No.1/claimant is entitied
‘rs: of Rs.31,579/- (Rs.1,89(}x6{}%x146.20×2(}°/o) instead of
~ along with intexest as awarded by the Commissioner.
” The Counsels for the contesting parties are éizected to file a joint
mgaxding the amount, which the respondent N<).1[workms,n is
§v{FA N0. 1 7752006
5
entitlezd and the Registry is diracted to transfer the same &?1§_ the
Commissioner for disbursement and the same ammmt shafi be
to the appellant.
N0 casts. V