Karnataka High Court
Manjunath vs M/S Essar Projects Ltd on 6 August, 2009
E
{K THE I-ISGH COURT OF K.ARNA'I'AKA.T'
ciacxrrr BENCH AT DHARWAAjfi__ '
mama "mm THE 5% my 01%' AUG¥3$Tv§jV'-i§:Cl§§9
THE I-IO1'3'BLE MR... .1u s';'xcé.«1§1§2§V." fiA£§;gr«&0r1A3*§"n;§s_VV
1¥I.F.A. Ho; -:{997I2tr<3_8'
BETWEEE: M A' I
MARSH MATH
359 [)§Li.,;§§PPA KGSDER .
AGE?) AB<3U*I*.2'? YEé,.':%1"S*--
000 ; MEL§{.E;"E_N{}tNQ} '
LL23,.;aa;'3J3.:x;'i",%.r¢:3i:fi:;31332383
i-1?,/93 §{ARAE;,3?;Ti"FUg. RE-;NB~BE;NNUR TALUK
§~{A\;.?EI~E--3i D1$;':*:*eijk::'r'% --- '
u - - * ..AF*P§;LLAN'§'
£33?' :38: :»:§.v; .;§§'REM;é':'H, Ami;
z
N n ~ . . . . . -4
' f 2- _ "v.. §.{;'@ '§;ssAa pgaimcvs mi:
V342
:"'§{f}<.2§.;}_F.E;¥B§E,EE; RETML @:s':*}.,§:* $03.2; FEX
QEFEAEEGE 920,254, HORNER?
.- IN
mic N0. 22912305 03: mg FILE OF' THE ADE3L,..;3£3.?i«L'J§§DGE
(saws; AND AMACT, RXQQEBENNUR, PARTLY «'.£§¥.€t_11'./"(A/?}.W:kiwt"g..'..."i""~'.§fE~--§E:'
CLAEM PE"I'§'3"I9N $012 {:OMPENSA"§'i{f)N. ":z%NI§:1 < SET§+3'§[1'. in five N0. :2 19 1200.5.
" _ 'EV'Vi,;s.;e4 .g1'.i¢§r_.:3.:1ce sf claimant is that thfi Tribunal
" dfiély méame of the claimant at R368!»
'A ' 2 . :i.1:s5::1*:.t::Aa.'s:3, gAé:ii7.VRs. 13$/~, whilfl awaréing cgmpegesatian under 'aha
"' .__1;1€fs;e;.:i'i32,g §i;iT£'£ir€ Eggs Sf magma. Thé other grievancé cf tbs
is that he was aged about 25 years on the fiat:-, of
.A aéciaieni ané the prepfir muitiplitr is 18 and the Tribuna}
V' fiafizmittedz an after in applying 1? mtxltiplissr. The claimant
gLwv
has 110 gxiavance with xagazrii to the finding
taii;§in.g the functional disabiiity at 10%,
3. it is settled position {:sf Jthfii' ibis
the Suprcmfi (Scarf; timd .*3:1;jibgi~.V_Maga§.i:x.__h:21;;i
Wagas of a u:{1sk3'lieci,.-- .m31ie -is V:i:>--.¥5e..L'takeii R;§.}.0Gf-- per
day. T}.'1t3I'f:f0I'€, 2:%:§f§;it«I,:L:=:i.:§_Vfor compensaésion
under the; haading :iiii:ii:<aé: "tcissfof Ii:z'i.-:,g:;§§m+:-5 on account of
disabflity. ' "
M 10 = Rs.E:~4,84f30/~
'E"1";;é" _{t1ain}1a':"a;1; ' has" :10 grievance in mspfict of the
" « _C¥f:sr11;f}fi1;1$é1*aiG;1 awarded under ether hfiads.
Ah: View sf €316 iaw dcciarad hy the Supreme
AA JCmi;=:_ the case {sf SUPE 88$ (SM?) Am QTHERS -»
V' " ..F€;§T!GNAL ENSURAFQCE C£}%\?IP§%NY LIEVEETEEB ;'%§'§D AE'{Q"§'HER
mparteé in (2069) 4 sec 513, the c}ai1::1a3:1t is antitlasfi far §0f';:}
interest an the c:-zbmpsnsation awarded by '$116 Tzibumai.
fixfl
35. For the masons stated abovs, the:
.....
:2) The apwai j, ”
ii} The aggéawrd’d;fit¢dVV f§;?”.{}i:.2003V A
in.§;vC’..Ne.V§é’L_;9’j”‘2§05′ A’ is» médified by
gi” V V. Compensafion to
1′ {:1}? Rs..52,842/»~ with
an ihfi enhanced
‘ = all 0thé:1″as}:>eC{s, the impugnfcd
at.%’:ax’:;1 remains izmaact and umiisturhed.
iv) Orriemd accardizigiya
Sd/–
JUDGE