OUR
u-an-was
. ....... ..,.- ......-......~. Htun wax: or KARNATAKA HJGHCQJRT or KARNATAKA men COURT or KARNATAKA HIGHC
'\XxJ\
IN Tiili'; HIGH COURT OF _
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARTGA 3 *
rum) THIS THE 27:::.»mY
égfiififi % 'V
THE HON'BLE J§}STK'E fii.A§f*«§Ji§i§A"£'HELL[ER
N_» g&gD
THE Ii0'§\VB:,1§L%}z§21RS5B;%Xf.§sAGARAmNA
wz§§%;:A.%N§>;z'45§zi0e5 (WC)
u-uan«..-----'-
S/~13 Sabajma Kelvin, ' ' is
Agéd yeagrs, A ' ' ~
, ' Dec: Cfoalieg "
.» Rxagnanaal Villssge,
Sifaahaggfira Taluk, Guibarga District.
% .. APPELLANT
(gm ; Basavaraj R.Mat:h, Advocate)
AND-
1 Raju S/O Shimoga Naika Rathod
Aged 25 Years
Dec; Driver
........,. .... .'....»....,...w. \..\JUH!\l W m.mm..mm ruurl wax: or mxmrnm men COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT op KARNAYAKA men COURT
R/At Gandhi Nagara
Yadagiri
Gulbarga District.
2 Mahaéevareddy s/yo Mohanreddy 1;-zua.-1;unds'.";
Occ: Business and'L<L.Q€ener of~.Ai1a':é _
R/At Baikal Villag_'é',~ _ Sha11apu;r3.__TaJ§uJc
Gulbarga £):is:.f:. " A H
3 The D.ivision...M_a::.agex%%, ' " V.
The C1;~:*.i.4=.ant:;_i.}. Inguzanaa Co?I..td. ,
N.<s{'.
app gfiini "v:;.di;?ai;;a'*- scucsam
su'3..1o'ar;;_~¢;_.,, .. " ' '
.. RESPONDENTS
gsmgpreeéhi S;Me1i§gmdL Adv. For 3.3,
A R1 & 32 dispeitsefl with)
fii’2;is».MFA is filed was 30(1) of W.C.Act against the
% TV ,§”u;_i$tieni£{)rder dated 39.12.2005 passed in
‘ W’ffA.S£{;No.150!2004 on the file of the Labour Officer and
‘1r’§<'aJ1fI;_a:e;;'s coazzpensaticrn Corrnnissioner, Guibarga,
aillpwing the claim petition for cempensation and seeking
"ey_:haz:cen1ent ef compematia-12.
This M§'A coining on far ADNHSSION this Day,
BVIANJULA CHELLQR J., delivered the follewing:
COURT OF KARNATAKA H!GH COU[§T"'G_F KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HiGi-I COURT OF KARNAIAKA I-HUI-1 Luum Ur txnnsw-unnn mu. . \……m.1
_/
#7
/
the case of the érleéical Expert" that appeliimt
to de any other war}: far his liveliheod
war}; In those conditions, the of
the appeilant only at 35% as the
a matter of fact, the 1\r'iedica¥"v'I?;3T::i)'e1'_tV doés Brat thém
is 35,0/0 or 50% of of {frat View 01' the
matter, the 'A -ék_1fiiéez*ation the imtome
of the gt assesseti 60% of the
wages, of earning capacity at 50%
which-. , even if Rs.300(}.?»~ is taken as
mentfflg imtoiiae is 60%, out of that 31 has in be
iriten' 'c(§§%§f§¢@*ati0u, which comes to Rs.l80£)i-. From
., , /. Gf earning capacity has to be assessed at 35%, with
factor, the quantum sf compensation would not
beyond Rs.1,25,0{}flf«~. Having regard £9 the fact that
x ' ._1he appeliant was awardeé Rs.1,4'?,'?9S!–, which is an the higher
IUUKI Ur IKAIHVIHIHAM niun \..v-an: ya' -n-u -«-an — – . ..
siile, we are mat inclined 1:9 accept the _fin§
agapellant that he is entitled far enhamementiéf " " .
Accerdingly, the appeal is disiaisséd; 9
Iudge
7{{"vs*_