High Court Karnataka High Court

B Ananda S/O Bettaiah vs Shivaramegowda S/O Mulugowda on 26 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
B Ananda S/O Bettaiah vs Shivaramegowda S/O Mulugowda on 26 August, 2009
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao H.Billappa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA, BAN(}ALORE.~.__

DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY 09 AUGUST, 2009'  ix

PRESENT

ma HOEWBLE MR. JUSTICE K.SR»E4I3m_{}V§'I§'"I'§5{) "   

AND V V . Q
THE HOWBLE MR. ‘§i;;r§;L:,51%f§A«i._j’«–v
M.F.A. 3.0. ” ”

BE}TWEEN:- «

B.ANANm, _ V

s/0. BE’I”l’AiAH;g_ » 4 r
AGED ABQ.iJ”i'”24 YEARS. ” ._ ” ”
R/O. HALLEGERE rvzcyzmf, ‘-

BAsARA,LU._;:QB’:.:,-«».. ‘
MANDYATALUK, ‘ ” V

MANDYA DIS’I’RiCf’£’. ‘

_ ” . APPELLANT
(BY 331″ 3,0. S1-‘HYARAMU 85 VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATES)

I $Hf9}1Rz’;;k}.fiGGWDA,

. “S; 0.’ M:J1;IJGow9A,
AGE-: ~4.8§1=YEARS,
R 1 <3, CHAIAJANAYAKANAHALLY,
CH.-*3§i DAGALU POST,

AA ' MANBYA TALUK 8:» SISTRICT.

V. _ EDWNER: TRACmR”~TRA1LoR
‘ ‘Ncu<A– 1 1–*r*–149£s/ 1496)

T THE BRANCH MANAGER,

NAHONAL INSURANCE CO. IfE'[}.,

«=¥/

P.B.NG.54, V.'rf.ROAD,

MANDYA.

(POLICY NO.6705284,

VALID FROM 14.02.2002 TO 13.02.2003)

(BY SR1 S. SRISHAILA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

RESPQ-P5._DENTjS..:’ _

THIS MFA 3S FILE!) U/s.Ji§O'(A;~ ._ QF .;v},f<:._
AGAINS'I' THE 0:213:31? Ii}T.16.I.2.'~{)4 ::"?.A;SS=§',DA. IN *
No.31/2003 ON THE; FILE OF' THE LA_BQUR DPFIGER £4:-NE) '

COMMiSSIONER FOR woR1 this day,
BREEDHAR RA.O,,J., deiiizarcd. the foI§t;iWi:Ig} –

‘I’i’;. e »»”q»{§:é’3.i301i of iaw that arise for
C0fiSk1€¥éfifi1%

‘V th;% W.C. Commissicmer waa justifieci in
minimum wages for assessmant of
:,,1,Aj.v’vg:’§f_.§;§finsa§on as against the evidence of the

‘ who says that he was getting salzny of
RSSGCIO p.m,’?

” -7:2-.’I’h«:-: appclmi ~» wnrkman is walking as a loadar in

Uactor wtraiier. The Wo1*}(}(}0

W.C Commissioner has howcver, taken the mi:1ii;n’urnAi3£%agcs_”‘ * V’

at 533.82 gar day and for ’26 days in month in

camper}-satisn. There is no material ‘is Ifijéct thc*_Vé:a*ig’1::n’c{£’~;«.§}i”*..

the: petiticmer that he was
The insurtsr has not a§}§.1uccc}is.–a;i§§v–_C£3:;t1*.s éwfidenff;-st. The
ewner has admitted t};1e’ ‘\:;:h3*’s*,i’r57:;;v 3:r’:’:garding
Wages. In that vi¢W__ of Commissioner
wasflwrong %;*ag{:3f«* rate of 133.2132? / –
p.111. Tfisfi to have assessed the:
wages a°§j’fi1é p.331. which is the maximum
stat1}§:{>x7f < A V V

"»'s— a3£fE'he"s– medisa§"'é§idence dismisses that the workman

left wrist which is schedule injury. The

WC__44¢0msiis's.i(;ne1" has ccrrtctly assessed the pemsntage of

"'..'disa¥3iEit'§'f':at 70%, The workman weuld be eniziflad 1:0 3. tom}

":L.'V'_e::s:::':::ti'p._.'~':I1sa1::ir:'):i sf Rs.3,'?'1,9Q}[- { Rs,24OG X 221.3'? K O}.

103

Tjilfi claimant is furtlxer eafitled to interest on the

u campensafion amount at the mic of 12% p.a. one menth

afher the slate of award an the payment. .,g,.1;.’;,§;:_;=’,{.f=-.1%’/A ii;

afiowed pazfly.

NM*