This MFA is filed tinder Section 3C}[i§*.f:ofV
Qoingensation Act. against the Jodgriient' dsted
25.95.2098 passed in WcA,rce--it:5/i§cgfL:oo5..asooze file of'-»_ f
the Labour Officer and V{Z'o'rnn1i'ssi'oner :.'f--rii>1": Wo}%1{:'neii's
Compensation, Udupi Distric'tv,.:.:"Udu;")i'---- the
Claim Petition for compensation "seeking'enhdncement of
compensation. V V. '4 V
This Appeal comin_g:i'_on this day, the
Court delivered. vthefl ;f«o1iowing--:..~'
file of Commissioner for
Wor1qnen"s dupi, has come up in this appeal
seeking enhéuiicementi~.of"~compensation awarded in the said
~"'.proce'e5€1ings for 't'i1e......injuries suffered in 3. motor accident
V"-w1iici:.. place on 05.11.2004 while discharging his
Jiorry bearing No.KL-- 14/A2002 belonging to
-first 'i*'espond'ent and insured with the second respondent
it V’ 4 ‘b,ei7o:’e the Commissioner.
iwgggaw/»:i
54.)
12¢ in the said preceedings, based 0:: thel_:eé2iderieeft.ei’,the
claimant arid as well as that of ddf:tes~::,l “i3.W;-2″”tr1e_:1eft.._patela’ and awarded
compensation in a sum eili.,ta-hing his income at
Rs.3,500/~ per’ .m’onthv’ relevant factor of
203.85. 1 . ~.
3. The” “hei-rig-l aggi”ie’x7ied by the quantum of
in this appeal challenging the
same on thegrsiuridélthatriiis income at the time of accident
_._Was thari ~ per month, against which the
taken the same at Rs.3,500/~ which is on
the further according to disability certificate,
which is prddfuiced and marked by him and also the evidence
_._l./’.fi,”v”ggiven hyV__d*P.W.2 in support thereof, the finding of the
fiCll’_).I1″lI”I1:.A1;’.iSSlOI1€3:’ that the loss of earning’ capacity suffered by
kflétiffléiflt at 50% is on lower side, considering the fact that
%°éVfi””§%
he was working as Coolie at the relevant point e~f~.ti:j1?.ee’aZf1_€i..the
injuries which is suffered would renéer hirnhfreenj
the Wi:>rl~: and the same is requiretig :9 he «efzharieeti.utal:ii:ig:’the~
higher wages and also thepp.p}ereei1ta’g:e ef_i:\s’s ‘0f’1-‘earning
capacity.
4. Heard the counsel’–..i”i)r, respondent N02.
Perused the impugned the same, it
is seen that :vt:ernI1’Iissi0ner so far as in
accepting the at Rs.3,500/« for the
the year 2004 is infact on
higher side’, ‘so of earning capacity which is
assessed byt’he”C0i’51Inissi€iner. Considering the fact that the
“V’*injuiVies siifferedu claimant has completely healed and
Tthe”saiti”injtiry has not Caused any permanent disability
to the”leXteriV-tfvfliere it is impossible for the claimant to do any
jetherull raetivitgz as a Coolie is not properly pleaded and
it it V’ lllvpestablipshlecl by the claimant
5. Under ‘£116 facts anfi Circumstances, ‘ChiS1 €:€3},iI’Tt
tbs cempenaatian awarded by the.(3z)::1rn_i’§§$iéf§..x:%r £:£1§§I1§._
loss of earning capacity cf the c1aifn’a1:: f 509/6″ }?iis.Vi%rages ‘A
at Rs.3,500/~ per month is on ‘high_€f ..There:f01*’e
the appeal does not merit adxxfizsasiery “Hence Vffhe same is
dismissed, Without any oriler as 2i_:(:g
; A ‘A dig”