IR' THE HIGH court? or xARx.arrA1g:a~-- I u _
cmwrr BENCH AT ' 1": Z _
WED .,.,,,8 THE 1.: mop¢m,
aw!"-"R.E AA A K
ma Hermann Mfidflfiififlfi 1'
MISCELL.ANEOU$ msxr Ap:Pp:s;i§'L%r;<§'."2:;%4ss}éoormvc;
BETWEEN:
SR1 BABUNAIK, SjC;JA'1'ARAMg
AGE 28 YEARS, 'o--¢c:;=Is:x. cmazsgsza ,
R/cs B.ELAGAL;-:*A;~a_;:.1A';";3';_sf:*."-33L1.Ar<y.
'. A " APPELLANT
(BY SR}. H_ANUMA~NTHr;§2.ED'.:)Y----sAI~1U;~:Ai;2, ADV}
AND: _ _ &_
1. SR1 K. MA}§AMA'i'§ .D2'-..E)AA«EIiI~E'
8/ O 'VMAAHAMAIQ YCEUSIUF
OCC:5g$C3WNER OF VEHICLE KA--34/42242
V' -.NOV;€E2, warm' NO. 12, REDDY S'}'REE'I'
.s;:§rs3f. BELI.,ARY:. _
2. 'PHE._DEVESI'QNA~I;"MANAGER,
N::w'1ND:A',a§;;_!;TRANcE ca. L'I'IZ3.,
BEL'i.ARY_'_'." .V
. RESPONDENTS
” -m.:s””AP9EAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30:1; 01?
«Wi3R§<:ME}N'S CGMPENSATION ACT, Acwnsxr THE JUDGMENT AND
C«§ZD§£'R'i3'ATEIL) 24/11/2008 PASSED IN W,C.NO.119/2005 ON THE
EC}? THE LABOUR OFF'i'CEI~2" AND COMMESSEONER FOR
_4WOR-KMENB COMPENSATION SUB–DIVISION- 1, BELLARY,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF' RS.10,500/– WITH THE ENTEREST
" 'A'? THE RATE OF 12 RA.
suffered permanent partial disability.
petition.
3. The W.{). Comxnissioricr, igtfizcr ‘£;ons_idci*L§3:g.”ii;*1c
materials placed before it, hag come to t11e_co:1c§i_uc.io:*i than ‘
appellant has sustaincd only: ‘ :i.iS£5;FEiiity and
accordingly awardcdv _ compensation.
Hence, this appca} Vscckihg” compensation.
4. Ficagfiuti ti;1e”pa1’ties.
–.*-question of law that has been
raised in tlils appeal is “vez1ict11er the WC. commissioner is
_ in uhoc1 <:£iP.g_____I?1;at apmllant had sustained only
when: in fact the Doctor who was
e:v¥;a';I.§".1i§1sco;..iV had opined that appellant suficred
% 25% of penmnent disabiiity?
V’ =-éi It is not in dispute, which even othcnvisc
proved from the matcriais Exs.S~E to 3 produced
“before the Commissioner that t(hc accident in qucstirgm
f
_,,,,,w ,,.,w–””
M4/V
. //
3-‘