.
HJTHEIflC%{COURTCHTKARNATAKA
CHRCLHTENKNCFIATINEARVNMD
DATED THIS THE 22nd DAY OF JANUAR_Y;'_:;"'2'O'_;§-I)? _
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICEIVA:J;£xGANNAfi'Ii{KVN:V"VV
IvI.Ir.A.No.s74I/2005 mzq E
BETWEEN:
BRANCH MANAGER _
M /SUNITEZD INDIA ASSURANCE coj,' 1:grD'.~-,A.%
MELLIGERICOMPLEX, - '
BAGALKOT. 'W
NOW REPRESEI\;TEE).-EV =
DIVISIONAL MANv.Ac;'I1:_I2;. 'I ' .
DIVISIONAL C;E'FI;Cf:: "
MARUTHI_GAI,LIV.__" " '
BELGAUM. . APPELLANT
(By Sri.H.1'.,j ag%ade.¢ESA1A9i,'-- «
AND in -.
' "A.GI3__23fII.E'A.Rs
--- -("S/'O..E3SEiW'ARAIAH DONI
".CLEANER2
"R/(.)_vi:3A1R§A(}I VILLAGE
, MLIDHC)L TALUK
A BAGA'LK()T DISTRICT.
A = .._S}'IIvAPPA
I MAJOR,
I S/(.) BASAPPA NYAMAGOUIJAR
OWNER OF THE VEIIICLE:
Ed
BASAVANAGAR
R/O (}OKA1{
BELGAUM. RESPONDENTS._
(By Sri.S.S.Sa}§an_, Adv. for R1)
This appeal is filed under Seetiolu. 39 {If} <)l'i"th'§, WC7.Act V
against the order dated 20.04.2006 passed. in ._WC_A/NF'-
104/2004 on the file of the Labour Officersahdi*Corniriis3ione1r_'
for Wori<men's Compensation, 7..Baga1l<:0t,_"_; A ' 'awaradingi',
compensation of Rs.2,83,'?77/» interest (iii? liV2%j p./_a, from -. '
6.7.2094 tiii the date of deposit""arid direCti.ng.lthe"appellant
herein to deposit the same. i E
This appeal comiiiigxdifl for h;ealiiring,.t.t'hibs day, the court
delivered the following: a A i 2
Heard the for the parties in respect of
the appeal prefeir1=ed.._»ioy t'h_e"'»1.nsu.i*ance Company questioning
the quanturn.ofieorrlipehsatiéini'oh the ground that the disability
perceiitgage,take'11._iby the Commissioner for Worm/nen's
Compen-sa"'tio.ni'*is on the higher side and interest not being
awarded in :'aeCofdance with law.
2. ‘Sri.H’.’T.tl:agadeesh, learned counsel for the appellant»
it”*if'”–._Iii’sprance;.. Company submits that based on the doctor’s
ee*vide–nt:e, the Commissioner has taken the £033 of earning
loapaciizy at 70% which is on the higher side .:–m<:1 in this regard
*-\
fiei
z_'J
he referred to the evidence on record inciuding that: of the
doctor.
3. On the other hand submission of Sri.Sa}g_’_ai’1′,’W1£::a._rried”«
Counsel for the respondent~c:1aimant is dairnant’
suffered injuries in the form of i”ract1;1_re o_fij’i1§1u;?._,
L-3 vertebra and on account. of Vthis, theo1’a.iman,t7?finds itiveirjr
difficult to bend forward or backxiviaraand aisoiios-t strength in
the rriuscies of the back. .
4. In the light of the above subrnission;’.,i3utforth and the
medical evidence ..i1?d_i¢’ai:in§g f1jac;t’L.1re ofaforeifnentioned vertebra
and the :odc)ctor’*a:1_.so& ‘o4pini’ng_’v that the claimant cannot bend
either bakovvat’d or foir’vvard’*”eannot even walk properly and
that these factorsV_iwi1;l it-borne the way of claimant working as a
iVC’o.o1ie;t._theyltnss of eariningiveapacity assessed at 70% appears to
be just’and&.r.e’a.so”nab1e and moreover no question of law is
involveti with ‘1*egard to this aspect of the matter is concerned.
” E-{oi/srever, so far as interest is concerned, the same is
i rriociifieti’ by granting interest at 7″/.2.”/E» pa. from the date oi
V3
application till the dais of order of the COIT]IT1iSSiOI1E)E__’_ and
therea.fterwards at 1i2% p.21. till paymem is made.
6. Appeal is thus aiiowrcd in pari.
Jm/A