IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARRATAKA CIRCUIT BEECH AT DHARWAD mzrmn mm THE am am or MARcH,.:§¢99~.'%T#::~ " BEFORE mr; HOIPBLE MR. .:Usr1cE41aK,é'.--..no1r.§m:!§;x ' % M.F.A. No. 4517i2:c:c6 (we; BETWEEN: 1.
MAHADEVAPPA BAsA§>.P;{; rvIA1);vA;_4.Ai2’V,.”‘
AGED ABQUEQZ? Yi§_.ARS__.’ _ ” .j §
R/O: AG5SAP%A”HAI.L}, TQ: m”AD’AG1″”
D§ST: »
APPELLANT
(By Sri.: MA5AN}vi0_H’AN»– KHAN NUR, ADVOCATE)
. Ss21:;’ ‘;<3;~1}xr;.'KARAG0UDA
NI.N3AN;aCx{3.UDA PATIL
_ "-T'.AGa"mAAJ{m"
A A $210; Ku:R:;AGER1,’rQ: NARAGUNE) 532 20?
“2%31s*r’; ‘c§.r;DAG
. ; L Tf”iEv-~ii}§VISIONAL MANAGER
V “i’«§EW INDEA ASSURANCE’. CGMPANY L’? D
V EDAVANGERE 5?? G01
RESPQNDENTS
” ($3,: Sri.MAHESH WODEYAR; Sri. R. s. HEGDE,
~~ ASVOCATES FOR R1 AND Sri. C.i€.RAVISHANKAR,
A{)V€)CA’f’E FOR R2)
MFA IS 913,39 u;s.3o(1) 0;» w.c ACT A(}’q.INSP’_”i’I%iE§”
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 31.01.2005 1M,.*:~;:s.ssr::1%)’- ~-
WCA/NF’: 95/2004 om THE FILE or» THE}~–…LABQUR”‘
OFFICER AND C()MMISS{ONE_R~~ .3022 V4″wt;gK1w1f;:N’F-._,
COMPENSATION, HAVERI, Aagowmis; *._’1*H;E;-._ QLAIMT.’
PISTITION FOR COMPENSATiQN’–__ ” &.” ‘s,EEK.§N{}”V
ENHANCEMENT op COMPENSATION. ” T.
THIS APPEAL CQMINS ‘Q;N~~..%F0R A§’MIS%_SIt’;)N ‘mis
DAY, THE comm’ SELIVERED THE 12QLLow1._NG; ;
‘A ‘
Thz: V’ Court seekirlg
enhancégment f§1r;_e’é’VVc{mi”;}>:=:;a1:~:a’i:ioz1 as against the sum
awarcieti jg. V.wc:A/ NVF/’$6/éfl(:}#§.’.
0051136} for {hft gaafiies and
“‘._.pe:–:.::sea sggmezpjfieax papssrs.
‘ ifispect of the ilf};jfl}’:i€S said to have been
‘111};
L
n
substantial question of law for consideration in this
as to Whether the Commissioner was gustificd in’ 1 *
the Wages at Rs.2,{)O()/~ by h,o1d;im:_;….th_¢ mm §hVe= _ “‘
max11:n’ mm to be considered under S¢cti_(:>:5.’;4
Worlmesfs Compensation Act ‘_.I9,23 -Easé
‘the Act’ fer short).
4. In this rega1t:1 i’; is. issue miating
to the wages QI§’*t}_cxe .Vk.:~;1.AV:I<.'s'iic:r<:d by the
Commission¢r–V§:hii§L issuirg-f:v which has been
fiamed its izoticing the claim put forth
by the claimapt the wages, thr: Cammissioner
has nqiiéed that fibscnce of there being any contraxy
é§'.7i}lt}.€.°§.Iv¥:'aJ~(fi,_fi' §',.§1::V~ A'wa,ges 6f the claimant weuid have to bti:
per month. Having come to such a
V _écii1:1E.'i:c: V-cbnciusion, the Commissioner has thereafter
H " " fést1§§:isd"={I.:1e reckoning of the said amount to Rs.2,{}00/- far
of calcuiation by referring ts Secticn 4 (3) (1)) of
' ~*:.he;Act by siating that the maximum of Rs.2§O0O/~» coulzi be
" reckoned.
5. in this xzigaxd it is to be noticed that the said
pmvision was amendeé}? by the Workmen’s Compensation
“N
(Amendment) Act, 2000 (46 of 2000) W.e.f A’
wherein the earlier amozmt which was fixed ef ”
Rs.2,0{)O/~ was enhanced to Rs.4,Ufi0/cg’
instant case, though the Comp1i:§siofie1f i1aving,’ec1′;ee
conclusion that the wages was i?é’s.;5′,000
to have reckoned the “inf the VAc1V:;x name1y
Rs.4,0(}O{– per mesfith. error of law
requires to bee is taken at
Rs.4,000/– pee o§%1ei’-:’Aparametcm with regard
to the iielevafif’vfiacgcfcéae-<.d"*« 1033 of earning capacity as
reckoned 'by "the {3om.i12i$s§9i1L"ir is taken into consideration,
the uwcuidf' be eilfifled to the compensatrizm of
as «véigéigyinst the sum awarded by the
I {3ei:r,;;miseienerL I . V _}
Hoifiever, on the aspect of interest, it is made
'clear t}iat__ the claimant vmuld be entitied to interest at 12%
the said. amount fmea 01.03.2005 till the amount
V. a\§?ia1°de€i was depesiteci before this {Liourt and towards the
u:f'e3:1ha;nced portion, till the same is paid, in View of the iaw
laid down by the Hcrtfbie Supreme Court in the case of
NEXTQONAL ENSURANCE CGMPANY LEMKEB vs. MUBASIR
.2
3'.
AHMED AND ANOTHER’ (AIR 2200?’ saw 1265) wit1i:,§’_:’r.&’:’g’é;.$:’c:i–:::_:;;i-‘. .
the manner of payment of interest insofar’~’a:~;– u
schedule i.njun’f :th€’*
order passed iay the Commissioxjze.-:t,_ The ff31}1}.’iEiI1Cf3xi”;}€}Iftj.OI1_V{)f’ %
the amount shall be deposited ‘ihc fiiirl. ._
insurance Company frozfz {he date
of receipt of copy of this orcier jfiit same shall
be disbursed to u
‘?.. Inv the? appeal stanés
disposed (bf. I
Sd/-..
fudge