HJTHE}HG%ICOURT(H?KARNATAKA
CHRCUYFBENCHIUWDHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2o,Ld;_.'Vj
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AS. }'S0.P4ANAIe1A1&'A
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL N¢';2Ai'S9S/2QU%39f
BETWEEN:
CHANDRAKANT _ 4' f
DONDIRAM Gom--1ADE* * *
AGE. 24 YEARS, "
occ. NIL, 4] I. A S A
R/O. KURLI,
TQ. CHIKKQ'DT;._V"=4:-_V ' ._ A
DIST. BELG.AUiM»', '
H.APPELLANT
(BY ADV.)
AND:
Y7
4...
A. A ..... .. V
K SHHUEMAGADUM,
S.A:G_EV.' MA.,J ., CLUB ROAD,
W. W%M'"""*
V".-;iOeVrI1Sed the papers. 3
TS.)
BELGAUM.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SR1. MK. SOUDAOAR, ADV. FOR R2)
MFA FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGA1N’STVV’.T_}I73_,’V~.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED. 13/10/2008 E’ASSE D”IN’_””P ‘
WCA. SR»167/2007′ ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR’::OFF1CER_ ” .
AND COMPENSATION FOR WORKIVIENCOMPENS.ATIEO’N,V,
SUE DIVISION NO.I, BELGAUM, PARTL'{“PA’LLeOWIVNG”
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION__ ANDV_*’_T’SEEKI’;NG”
ENHANCEMENT OF’ COMPENSAT’IQN,
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FQ1§i’A_D’1\/IISSNIOAN _TI~Ai_.I;?S DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED TH_E._FO_LLQW1I’J,G:.._ ‘
JUDGIVIEWNTINN
The appe}.1ar1t””;i3 Seekifig«:eTi}’1aIj1VCement of the
compensatiof: ‘-as “sum awarded by the
Commissioner fO1<._\7v'Ori€:II1erTS'VCompensation, Be}.gaL1m, by the
award cIe;:¢«:c1AIk'3,/A%%Io The Commissioner has awarded
the"sT1%:mV'¢TTRsT.E:T,7a;'1eo/A.
2,"E§eai'd"'_~.,,t'he:'*'iearr1ed counsel for the parties and
,,.A
3. The learned counsel for appellant would contend that
the Commissioner was not justified in reckoning the diysaiimlity
at 45%. Considering the nature of the injuries,
earning capacity should have been cQn.s,idered’i’a’t–:’_a. l’1ig’h.e1~..v
percentage. It is also the contention that t’hie”iwa’g.e’s
by the Commissioner is on the low.e_i~..sidei’and’ tl’ieV_s’a;1’ne..calls * ii
for enhancement.
4. The learned coun.sel:~. re’spoi;ntientwInsurance
Company howeveiliifgi quantum of
compensation It is contended
that in factixthe capacity as assessed by the
Commissioner “it.:selfviis side and therefore the
fur.ther not arise. Even with regard to
theawages, .it’«.is.iicontended that there was no satisfactory
evidence. ‘a;’Vailal3Ie”before the Commissioner and therefore the
_iH_rno’nthly reckoned at Rs.3,000/– is appropriate.
the iight of the contentions, I have perused the
iiawa:rd-ipassed by the Commissioner. With regard to the loss
it
kegs
of earning capacity as assessed by the Commissioner a
perusal of the award would indicate that the Commissionieriin
fact has considered this aspect while answering__issue<'§*$oi.ffi._._".
and 4. Considering all the issues and ._more
reference to the issues at 3 and 4, the"-nat_u1*e o1"~.thei'
suffered by the claimant and the..:Vevidence__tendezredby"the * it
Doctor has been referred Thge-'*dioc11ment.iat'vEx,.l;–5 to 9
have been taken into of Dr.
Suresh Shivalingappaijlfiaraiattii to in detail.
On noticing the the disability stated
by the has assessed the
loss of which in my View is
appropriate _,andiid'oe's nth:-t any further enhancement.
relating to the wages reckoned by the
°"C'ommissi_one.1'~has also been considered while answering the
"issue. H in: this regard the contention of the claimant with
V"«_i'regard'to..the income has been taken into consideration and
iiultimately the sum of Rs.3,000/- per month has been
i
e
F/K
assessed. In the instant case it cannot be in dispute that the
claimant was working as a driver. Even though he_4..wa_si~.a
driver of a light motor vehicle the fact that
coolies the income was being reckoned….a.,t_'Rs;'l'O'0'/ifli'ttler.i
over the same in the year 2007 will h:ave1'_to"Vbei'ke'pt :%.7'ie{n1<f
and in that context considering ti1at~V..he is" a_ d1"_iVer,"'V.atie.ast a 'V '
sum of RS.130/- per day be_reckon,ed.:§ If the
same is done, the monthly si51n3V.of Rs.3,900/ —
If the 60% of purpose of
calculation, the 45°/o loss of earning
capacity il?s';'2;,3l,607/–. Since the
Commissioner of Rs.1,78,160/–, the
claimant V_:enti..i:led.stosgthe balance of Rs.S3,447/– by
v'vayi'of'en'han"ceri1er1t. iiiii
7. ‘TheV___v’c1airnant is entitled to interest on the entire
it”_”co’1nVpe.nVsation” amount at 71/2% from the date of petition till
award and at 12% thereafter. The said rate of
iin_ter*e”st shall be applicable to the enhanced portion of the
re
re
6
amount as well as the amount awarded by the Commissioner.
The amount with interest shali be deposited by the Ins1;ra;r1c_e
Company within a period of six weeks from the dateiof’re’ee§j§:_j_ _
of a copy of this order. On deposit,AA»Vthe
disbursed to the claimant.
In terms of the above, the”appea1″svtar1dsof;
No order as to costs.
hnrn/–