in THE HIGH COURT OF KARKATAKA.
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAID H' 1 _
DATED Tms THE 2" DAY 93 _ 3 _
namaafl ' 1' M K V
THE HOFPBLE mR,as$TIcE_K;RAM;i!q,x _ '
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST Aézvgki, No.52.?é;;'T2'G0*f(:m3
C/W MISCELLANEQUS mi-3.'? App'g:;31,, NO§€>Q?AZ /Q00'?
In MFA No.6273120o7
BETWEEN: '
amwcra
NATIQNALINEsUE?b£%;N£3E1'_§:O'~£{E§_vL :~,. ~ _ *
REC%IONA.L E\;~iAI'€AC%EF£-,_ ' --
NATEQNAL' «£Ns31;RA1.*§C'E:j 'CG; --~ _
REGIONAL GFFECE, 'sUBwa;;>r,.M COMPLEX,
144, M._G.RoAI3, BA.N::AL=:3R'E' ~1.
GULBARCA, 1\§O'a*},.RE?7<3;'D _ .-
APPELLANT
- {BY :;:j,§'~:s*,. E'L;E;,t{,%_Pz,E:?{:5~$--.;s..:~:13 am A=ms:R:'sHNaswAMY , Amzsg
."«v.Ars;§§'
:. 'S2 ':{HAm--¥§-- SASHA,
s;.._ $._;«,.~ SALAM,
NQW 5399 ABOUT 22 '2' EARS,
s:3C3gA?-i2i,/W "2188
R/A,' M/S MOBARAQ TRANSPORT OFFECE,
TQ' GANGAVATHE, DIST. KQPPAL.
RESPQNEDENTS
{BY SQLV; LAKSHMEKRHY REDS? FGR §«~};, ADV}
;~;.
g. , ,,n..
it .....,-/'"4' (
¢
2
THIS APPEAL ES FSLED UNDER 30(1) 0'? WC. ACT AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT' AND AWARD DATED 21/11/G6 PASSED EN
WCA/NF'~4i7/G5 ON THE FILE OF' THE LABOUR OFFICERTIKND
COMMISSIONER FQR WGRKMEN COMPENSATION, SUBWD-{VI.Si'QN,
KOPPAL DESTRECT, KOPPAL, AWARDING A COMPE3%'{S£s*?1_OESI,<, 1, ---
144, gm}. ROAD, B81'-§!._GALz_1)RE'3;~.; < - ~ .. fi;PPELLAN'E'
(E3? MfS LEX P:-,E§%::Jf:~i:.A;w.KR1s1»zNAsWAM¥, ADVS.3
AND:
- ,1. ::';'i3R;:&:aIA3ALij; « ..... V' »
.3/* e.:;=. SHEESHANNA
» ,N+:>w' !§GED._A'B.OUT 32 mags,
' «;><:<:; _;E77€_'DRF'v_'E1;£2,
~.RT;'.() GA:4_:3AvA'rH:, am', KOPPAL.
. 2; 3,""Az;a.MAT:i1ULLAH,
S/O ~KAi}'iM S38, MAJSR, OWNER C3?'
.. VEHECELE HQ mm 23.161 2133
R:/AA M/S MOBARAQ TRANSPQRT OFFECE,
"'?1Q,(~'GANG£VATEZI, QEST, KQPPAL, 5. RESPGNDEZNTS
?~.P?E£%.L IS FEEJES UNDER SECTEQN SSH} GP' 's'¥,{3. £§C'E'
AGAENST THE GREEK §fi§'§'ED 22/§..'i]Oé PESEEE {N WGfifN§x
Nfifiléjfifi ON THE FILE 0? THE LABOUE? OFFICER AND
CGMQXSSIGNER FOR WORKMEN CUMFENSATIGN, KQPPAL
3
SUB SIVISION, KOPPAL, AWARDIEZG A COM§'ENSA'I'_I_QN OF
RS.92,6'}'8/~ WI'I'HIN'E'EREST@ 12% PA. 1
THESE APPEALS COMING 0»: FOR HEARENG '£'1?.¥.I_S4$'»T:J?:£=x"'}C;~';1:"§«€EV}3
COURT DELIVEREEZ» THE FOLLOWING:
Efiiif
The appellant ~-- insurer has :;:G;.3:1e ;ip Vwitifitlifigse
appeals, chalisnging the _g:VQr:;1£1ficr§.V: *
judgment: and award passr::4,223/- and Rs.92,678/'~«
respectiveij2«..j;3 respoxmdents Na} in both the
._Cass:f:§'«:.ujijffI1 }Z1téf€St....at«'lQ% fmm SQ days after the date of
' a£:Ci(}e;1t., V ' = "
fl 'V Mr. Y. Lakshmikanth Raddy, {ZO'€.l1}S€}
I"(3Sp€)I1(Zi€}i1?Z No.1 in bath the C8.S€S.
AA VT The immed C(3'E.}I1$€1 appearing far respaxaderxts,
3%.} if} mm the cases submitted that thca {:$IIZ¥.IfiiSSi(§I1f:I'
'4 was jumified £33 awaréing cempensation by consiéering the
*2
':\'
.=- .__) ______ Wt?
.
age of 1:116 respondents No.1 in both the case i.e.V.x
25 years and therefom the same do not cal1__ ;fCiI” §i.1_~1I:§31:*f;§rcw:%
4
arid prays for disnlissal of these apgeais. _- ~ V
4. I have carefuliy per1E2$ed1″‘ fi;1e ”
award and {he materials placfzd-~ 3:111 fecdrclw.
5. Havixlg regard to tIi’e:eV_«f;a<':ts, th€%:_ arise'
for considemtioil is:
3.
\§:’_:11et}:1j, éf’?vj’.i:h¢ :21 {:o–r§§;tfijs$iQuer was }uStifie{1 in
acvée-p”tifig –fr_h£§ ‘j_§:g%id.§{fice.— 01’ fir. D. Viswaprasad
whe ngit -cx;1fi1ii§£ed 13? rasparzdent in both
.. ca$€ s” ‘:has not given avidense as
vurider Se<:tio11 4(1) (C) (ii) of the WC
%
the CO1]1I'I}iSSi(i}I16I' was justified in
" imarast fmm 10/10/2005 instead sf
'A : flofié month fmm the date at' dstarminatiarl as
V' heifi by the Apex Cam': it} the ¢:::a,se Gf Natianai
Efisurance Co. Lids, Vs. Mubasir Ahmad and
Anatiiar, reported in (200?) 2 Supreme CQUZNZ
Cases 349'? 4r.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the injuxiies
sustailled by I’f3Sp€)I1d6ITi1:S N0} in both the casrs¥:$”
the course of their employment. The
herein in both the cases haxié 4exami1f;_éti” -:§1″}.a7: fir ‘
Viswaprasaci as P.’W.3 to assms their1’disab’fiif_y’a13’d ‘1s:s~sor V’
r;*.arzi11’I1g capacity. ACcord511g.%’j:’q:£0. PW.;3¥”t?1″€:
N<}.1~(:1a.ima;}t in WCA./NF N013; s1'1ff'érS 2O – 25%
of disability. Like wig 1~<:3a.i3:I1a:1t in
WCA/NF–'–$L1'f{e*r$.v"§25 — 30% permarlent
physical»disabixitfi I" %
'7, raspciidféiits have not garoduced either
'~ ._t_hei:'f z;:§:rtifiéa{",-::.or any other document to prove their
j'a.r1civ…t}*i:éz::fare in the absence of any such dacument
the Commissicsner thought; it just and
' pr0per*~1:;§":.take into consideratizm the age of respondents
" both the cases as mentianed in the would
K :V"§<«=:;_:'r§tifi<::ate as 21 and 3} years mspectiveiy. Hence, I do
not finé any iflegality or ificorrectness in 1316 compensaticm
. «- ;,;,»«r-"
awarded by the W2C. Commissioner ané
not require any interference.
8. So far as awaréi11g:_ of i1i’i:e14est is 1cé:1(ie1*né;:1,”‘thé’ ,
Commissioner has erred in days
after the date of 1’Lf;tVi£e decision
sf the Apex smut: in INSURANCE
co. LTD., vs, reported
in (2007) 2 f%c§gé3§s 349. Following the
said _’i¥.1ii-égest by the Commissioner
from 30 Adgigs accident is iiable to be set
asidgg’ agile} ‘V shouid be awarded on the
¢c€I:§c::n_§*g;é.1;};§e§f1A.._a:nount oniy after 30 days from the date of
%pa%ss¥:;;”g 1.3., mm 21–12m2o05 1:311 deposit, to
V V’ . that’é:xtc:{1t Judglem: and Award under challenge is to
‘ H ‘A V’ — {mg-.di:VtV?ii.§é.
9, Accorciingly, bath the appaais are afieweé in
:~ pa:r’t. The camperxsatian awarded by the WAC.
Commissisner in WCA/NF N034}?/2005 and 416»/2303:’:
I
*1
are hereby Conflrmed. However, it is ordered that
respondents NC).1 in both the cases are entitled tq iigfeyest
only from 21~»}2-2()O6 1:332 payment.
The respondents No.1 in botigtlae CfiStifE;.::£i3f€”éI11;ii’E§§€i’
1:0 withdraw tha amount in deijcgosit .f).ef«::1fé~ i1:{i$ j”eQ’i::;fi;,
deposited ‘by appellant in 1_:i::.$.ir £’esj:»er;ti&:*é:
balance amount if any sha}1____?§@:_Ci8Vp0s§1:ed_:V.§}}{A appei1a11t
within 60 ‘days from _ 2
N9 order ezzéztq c<:}$ES'." ~ V
sd/2
3:_LTDG.%.: