IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA g Q
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRU.AiW I-
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE
MISC. FIRST APPEIVXLIVO.13.015/2A():Q7{WC}
C/w ' & S
M.F.A.NV0;'I3'Q'1V:?¥/2.{I{)"?'€e7?C}
BRANCH
M /S UNITED' II%E:;UIA--».{NSURA.NCE CO LTD
REPBY ITSVC.IDIVI:SI0.NAL MANAGER
DIVISIONAI. 0F;TfICAE;"ABI;;IAPUR APPELLANT
" COMMON
If ~ [By Sri.SHIvANAND PATIL, ADVOCATE)
_ V15'._S«I\&"I4':"&"}.IP_1ii'/x'I"sII\/{MA @ SHIVABAI
/ O BASANAGOUAD KAMATAG1
R)' ATV BOMMANAI-IALLI, SURAPURA TQ.
GULDARGA DISTRICT
' v 2._SIDDANNA <3: SIDDANAGOWDA
Age: 43 YEARS
__ SE S / O ERASANGAPPAGOWDA KAMATAGI
R/AT M BOMMANAHALLI SURAPURA
W
TALUK, GULBARGA
W/O SIDDANNA @ SIDDANAGOWDA A ,
40 YEARS, R/AT M DOMMANAHALL1 SURAPURA' -
TALUK, GULBARGA
4.SRI SHANKARAGOWDA j;
S/O NINGANAGOWDA HOSMANI A M I
35 YEARS, OCC AORICUI..TU_RIST" "
R/O BOMMANAHALLI, SUR-APURA I
GULBARGA I
5.PRAEHUOOwDA-C? _ '
S/O BASAvAvANA'rHRAY.IISIcI
40 YEARS, R/O VAN13AGI~i0O_R_
SURPURA, G'U1,BARGAg * RESPONDENTS
I IN MI«’A.I3015/2007
[By ADVOCATE FOR R1– R3)
1ITHIS~NI1§AI”IFI’L§’ID U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT
AGAINST’TI-IE~.J’LI,13’G1′.!{_E§\IT DATED 08.08.2007 PASSED
IN WCAI«–..SR[F) ._1\?O.”6.?,..;’2007 ON THE FILE OF THE
LABOUR OAFRCER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN V”‘CQM’PENSATION, SUB D1VIS1ON–1,
«I3I’;IA1i=If;RDISTRICT, BIJAPUR, AWARDING A
v’vCOM’PIEi\ISATION OF RS.3,27,705/– WITH INTEREST @
1 .SH£ARANAGOWDA
I ~ 45 YEARS, S /OCHANDRAPPAGOWDA
E_ xBII?.ADARA, OCC; AGRICULTURIST
{R/AT BOMMANAHALLI, SURAPURA TQ.
GULBARGA DISTRICT
,»«;~=a;’R*””
Q
A
62/07 passed by the Commissioner for Workn1en’s
Compensation at Bijapur.
2. Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsuelld
appellants firstly contend thatw» the dnrerellll
working as cooiies in the Tractoretrailer in’-qdu-e.stion”«and.
according to the terms of theivpjlpmicydthey “‘entitledl” C
for compensation. isllno rrlore res–
integra in View of the Court in the
case of LTD., VS. SR1
RAJKLnvIAIé féggo:-ted in {:2oo9 KART.
M.A.c.’ls6 C
counsel for the appellants
contend that…lwi1e’n appellants were taking mud the
tractof’l’C:dash_ed against them, resulting in injuries and
do not amount to injuries sustained
dui*ing»__’the’lcourse of employment.
4’: decline to accept this contention of the learned
l”c:ou’nsel for the appellants. The Commissioner on
it ‘””careful- assessment and appreciation of the evidence
we
:5
rightly concluded that the appellants sustained injuries
during the course of employment. I have no reasons to
difier with the conclusion arrived by the Commi;ssioi<1er_.A4
Accordingly, both the appeals are hereby'
The amount in deposit be returned to the
for disbursement in accordance ai?»fard.. ~. *
Lr