IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 13? DAY OF' OCTOBER 20mg
BEFORE R' R R
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsT1oI;11.BI1.Lm%$j=:A'~f ,1'
M.F.A.No.3550/20:09 "
BETWEEN: V V'
Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Co. L'£.::'i.~,_
New Muslim Hostel Compiexi; _ g
I1\/Iain, Saraswathipuram, V 'R
Mysore, V
Now represented ;by~
Regional Managetviyg _ _ ._
Oriental Insuré;_I1Ce-"Co. L1;d'.'}'5fj= *
Regional Oyffiee_,V'1'--Io".Z£4,/ A'
Leo Shopping Cornpleii, y " _
Residency Road V
Bangaiore 560 _ " R ...Appe11ant
_{.By Srivffiifadeep fof'A-N_._I§rishna Swamy, AdV.,]
Pfaifiashviy ' "
S /o.'May_igov#da.
TNOW agecfabout 29 years,
3 Vi2,!q.Hebbakavad1 Village,
* '~.Kojtha~thiHob1i,
_ ilvlandya Tq. & District.
2. H.M.Manju,
S/o.i\/Eayigowda,
Major, C/osiddegowda,
No.1650, II Cross, Vidya Nagar, u _.__
Mandya City. ...Respo1'1"dent"s
[By Sri Neeiakantappa K. Pujar, Adv: for V 2 'é C
R2--Served) 1 ' '
=!<*=i<**=l:
This M.F.A is filed under o1--d;ér_3o(di;»o£ the
Judgment and Award dated passed in
WCA/NFC/CR.No.91/2008.zbn' -thanvfiC1es«_q{dA[Labour Officer and
Commissioner for WorkmenV:C'C.orn_oensatioCn;V---'Sub Division--2,
Mandya, awarding':Ca_'-- cornp_ensatio'ni_"-.of_V:VVf?'i1,'76.332/-- with
interest at 12%;' C' A '
This Admission this day, the Court
delivered A following ~ . . VV _ _ C'
"{-Jonomsmr
V. a}5'pea1;A_is direeized against the judgment and order
by the Commissioner for Workmen':§L/
Compensation,-.«""Sub Division 2, Mandya in case No.
C /CR--91/2008.
L/
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the
Commissioner has granted compensation of ?. 1,?
interest at 12% pa. from 30 days after the award_.§:"' «' ., ;. it
3. Aggrieved by that, the _appe11a--1"1t~-- :I'nsuranee~~ p
Company has filed this appeal.
4. In brief the facts arejdV"'«--..
The first respondent ads.' in the
goods auto bearing to the second
respondent. That on ,8/1:/’QVUOVS, a.m.d, when
the auto was’Vd’mo§ring:bi1 :Mar;gala¥Kirugavalu road, a buffalo
came aorossthe respondent applied breaks
and as a resuit thattthedddauto turned turtle and the first
I-respondeenti»-.”esustainedvdddddidnjuries and claimed compensation.
awarded a sum of i’.1,76,332/– with
d”AA°i;1terest–~..at from 30 days after the award. Aggrieved
~-«’.fi.’Ijy_V:’that, appe11ant–Insurance Company has filed this
A’ V . \
5. The learned counsel for the appellant — Insurance
Company contended that, the Commissioner has.:’*e..rredVv in
taking the loss of earning capacity of the 1st
40%. He also submitted that, the -.1§t ‘ j.
sustained fracture of right ankle
Doctor has exaggerated the
Capacity and therefore, was notjustified in
taking the loss of earning respondent at
40%. Further has occurred
on 08.01.2008″ has been issued on
Corninissioner was not justified
in placingvvreitiance I/1e therefore submitted that
the impuggned order cannot be sustained in
:against this, the learned counsel for the first
tV….v.resporitientV_sut):nitted that the Commissioner has rightly
the” loss of earning Capacity of the first respondent at
therefore, it does not call for any interference. He
also submitted that the first respondent has suffered in’i_ury to
his right ankle joint and right wrist and the doctorV”d’eL_p:o’sed
that the first respondent has suffered peirrrlanel-it”disAahi1i’tf,i_”‘_of V
40% and therefore, it does not call for”interfere_noev.’._ urther, 9
he submitted that the Commissionerhfasd. erred. in avirardivngu
interest at 120/op.a. from 30 da3r,s””V-after. the
Commissioner should have,’ i:nt.erest’Vat “fl/2% p.a.
from the date of applicatifon’ of award and
thereafter, at of payment and
therefore, the order needs to be
modified.
7. I have considered the submissions made
‘1_3;,r. the learned counsel. ,fo__r. V the parties.
substantial question of law that arises for
o’onsider’ati0.,1_’i
.. _’_fWh’ether the Commissioner was justified in
it ‘~ .,td§cing the loss of earning capacity of the
respondent at 40% and awarding interest at
12% p. a. from the 30 days after the award?
;/
9. It is relevant to note, the first respondent has
sustained injury to his right ankle joint and right
the doctor has deposed that the first respondenf
injuries to his right ankle joint anciwri-ght hast’?
resulted in permarlent disability of of
capacity is 40%. Therefore, the the
loss of earning at 40%, which
10. Th Comn1issio:n’e1*:.hfasVftalkenll’th:e:’.’iAiages of the first
respondent at respondent has
deposed of €14,000/-p.m. and
batta of ?:’r100/ is no acceptable evidence.
Therefore, the”efijomniissionefhas taken the wages of the first
or-es_pondent: ?.l3;50Q_[:v per month which is proper and
th-erefore, not call for interference.
11;. 1E__nsoiar as the interest is concerned, the
it iifisrrimirssioner has awarded interest at 12°/op.a. from 30 days
.§ft:er”.th’e”t’aWard which is not correct. The Hon’ble Supreme
in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.. V/s
L/a
Mohd.Nasir 8: Another reported in (2009) 2 SCC (C1_’l__)_ page
987 has held that the interest has to be awardea’1″‘at’p:<.5:f"=v/2"/'o
from the date of application till the date
thereafter, at 12% from the date oi""award.: tiiV]"x:da7te'of ii'
payment.
12. Accordingly, the Eof. The
impugned judgment passed in
WCA/NFC/CR–91/20(v)8 at 71/2%
113- f1’0H’i the of award and
thereafter, award tili the date of
payment 0111?. 1,’¥ ‘i by the Commissioner.
Thepfirst 4″4i’espon’de’i1téT.is permitted to withdraw the
amount” d~epo’sit beforeuthis Court.
sa/-;__
Iudge