IN THE may-z COURT OF KARNATAK35.- ‘A ‘
CIRCUIT BENCH AT [;_Ieim§wA:)” ~ — If’_’;
I)ATE§ THIS THE 3RD my’ 0;? O€,”;.’I’«I’.:i’I-I3′<I'§3R_.:
BEF0 RE.V V 1' 'V . V
'THE H(j)N'BLE MR.JU$9ifi<§_E;
MISCELLANEOUS §iE:i;59?o /1fic§A<V)5.
BETWEEN: 'V " MALLAPPA, . '- S/ORAMAPPA PATiL,. ' ' AGED 25 YR,£'s,~--» 't:::, " LABOUR, ,
R/O.CHIKK£2.AALAGUDL’-‘E,AA *
‘I’ALUK:HUKK£?.RI;– V
*:>1s’r.BELGAUM.4 – APPELLANT
(:3? SR1. ;j>.’s.;«1.sz\}1A**:’.1a_:_V,’ Abvf FOR SR1 H,M.NIRANJAN, ADV. }
1 r§’:i.AIjL.,_A. £513.’; _§f)A4§’~£s€3V}’§§,
MAJCER,-_: ‘~ ‘
‘ ‘–=’».{OWNEI”a’__ OF
R;’O’CHI}{KA”–.LAC’UDDE,
T{‘ALUK:HU}iKE;RI,
” ‘V DI»<3;'§'..F3E:LGA'"a}M.
-~ ._ £2. _DIXxIs1o$:AL MANAGER,
– ma NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
v ‘e::iQ.;:,f:_*;:”>.,
BELGAUM. ‘ ‘ ;2§s§>c:>N}:>ENT
(1259; SRE.R.C,NA-GARAJ, ASV, FOR R-1 AND SEE M.E{.S€3UDAGAR, ADV.
.. FOR R-1*) – –
M3″,/”‘
i-kiifiiiii
THIS MFA ES FILED u;s.3o(1; ‘t’:=1ET ‘
JUDGMENT AND AWARD DT25/4/2005 EAs€._jE2:;>9zN’e;>~:o;~J{‘cA;’i§E..e§Ee;;i_G4
ON THE FILE OF’ THE LABOUR O F?F’ICER A£fJi} coE§.1%{.isS1dNE;E”Eo§es,
WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB–‘E)1:V1?3iOI\f-liw,_ . 13E1;{31={i;;i~}i;”‘ EARTLY’
ALLOWENG THE CLAIM PETYTION Eogeajgvi-E_ENsA*:*:0:$1 9.15:1) SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF comperzsmfrori’. ‘ L’
THIS APPEAL cVoM1NsAVV_Q:NV.;rc5;é :§1EAR.:N£:g–.*m1s DAY, comm’
DELIVERED THE EQEE§§2–_.v1Nc: V _ __
This’ap;:’>e}2ant seeking e11ha12cemen.t of
compensatiojzi..p£a$seévw}syj.’§he”ie’eiified Commissioner for We-rkmen’s
compenssfiog, éJ3. WCA.SR.43/2004 mainly on the
‘Et}Ea_{~7t”heA’ igiorknsefi Comyensafion Commissioner has not
p1″ii;3e1″i:;z’V evidence ané gmssly erred in taking only
‘ “*”?€)°X{~. he has sustained disabiiity {(12 the tune of
_ . jg 3. Q6926.
i.’I~:IeaI*d the learned counsel and perused the documents
. an record.
3. The oniy short point ixxsmlveci in this appeal is whether
realiy the appelaint sufiers 100% of the loss of eaxrning capacity on
1 ../
31 ,r ,.
3′,
account of the injuries sustained by him durixxgihe
employment? ‘
4. Acconding to the appellant, he
vehicie bearing Regn. No. KR-29: exld ” Ai’8V’84″V ut:’ei’eAr:. ‘m$prJnde1;tt ”
No.1. On 8/ 1/ 2004 when he was _g&:1 g ‘ix; the vehicle along
with fire wood the said vehi¢1§ie’;vasehi;v;§.;,% =ajKfs~Rfre bus and in that
accident, he sufl”ered.Vinjux’ies~ other fractures
and admitted :o41C:;v:;’§:fH¢s;aita3€aiid _’§1:e1fi private hospitai and
took and therefore, a claim
petition Cafif1C”i(:} be of R334 lakhs. The learned
CommissioI1er’e<–.fc1'v. Workaéezefbs Compensation, Belgaum, after
considering _£'£1eV iI1jui"iesV__;g__11_:i other documentary evidence, awarded
cQm§fensai'5pt1.e '<..c§'vRs.1,79,653/- by talcing 70% of the 1033 cf
V ea,II1in.g"capé1c'i¥:5r.c'§?Vt11e ciajmant.
:3': to the Dr.S.R.Hegde, the appellant sufifers 50°/E)
V 'p¢;1'111euent disabiiity. Thcugh the evidence disckases that he
eniy 50% of the pezmanent disahility is his limb, the
'Commissioner has wrongly taken the loss of eaming capacity at
n 3'0"/Ea. There is no evidence yiaceéi on record to show that due to the
'1 f' .
I ¥§’/’I/2
” ‘?”_Mvs _
injuries sustained, the apiaeilant suffers; tota} 4_
viewed fmm any angle, I do not find ‘ f 2
with the percentage of disability as
Cempensation Csmmissioner Thxé’
Commissioner has Iightiy appli€:ac1_ ‘=r§:1cv.fiJ1’t . and has
awarded compensation. ThV{§i7EV: J:SAIZi’O involved in this
appea}.
6. Accerdigigi is
Sd/-~
Judge