1 in THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT BANG!sL()Ri§ _ DATED THIS THE 197% DAY OF MARCH; A- THE HONBLE MR.Jusri§:E ,Ki;iA£;1a§N:§A 7 MISCELLANEOUS mesa" :=;r1PEAL"No;949;_;gV: V% ; LMAVAJI, 3/ CLDEVASI PATEL, AGE 45 ms, -. V R/(ZLHARUGERI, ASHAPUR sAW.M;L1--.,. 1; _. j' i)1sT.BELGp;.Um'...__ . . 2.JlVARAJ; " __ s/0.1:>12:v;~_,sI' PATEL, = " " AGEAO YRS,' ' _ _ " . R/o.HARuGE:2;, ASI;hji_\PUR saw MELL, .....
‘ DIf.3’?.BEL{l$UM. .. APPELLANTS
‘V ‘($’Y~«s3Ei§3.,:3.sHAsrRY, ADV.)
5.13%
‘ MONAPPE ANNAPPA BADIGER,
e m.goR,”‘
R/OHANATHA PLOT,
. ‘AHARUGER! VILLAGE,
‘f§Q.RA}BAG,
BELGAUM. .. RESPONDENT
(BY SR1 M.H.PRAKASH, ADV.)
..-h
‘:_’!,¢ 3/,’
2
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/330(1) OF
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED Q6/8/2005 FA,S4?»ED “$N
KAAPAAKA:SR-5222004 on THE FILE OF THE LABC§{3R-OF”-E-‘1CE_Ré_
AND COMPENSATION. SUB-DIVISKEN-1, BELGAUM,’ Awwnirze v 4_
COMPENSATION ow Rs.I,22,079/— AND _D§REQTiN§3._ -2’m:.,
APPELLANS HEREIN TO DEPOSIT I
THIS APPEAL COMING cm F612 H:§:méiN€s._’mtS I§AY–,.,f1’isg
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:’:__ “
JUD V This appellants have mum up
with this appca1_<_:hal]ensm1 _,' V awaxd passed
by ': 's Compensation,' Sub-
dated 26-8-2005
mainly’ the respondent is not an
‘_ and there was no tnzlatianship of
‘ between them. There is inoxtlinatc
chain: petition. The evidence of other
:«V.ci1£wit11csses does not oormboratiz with each other.
“i’he_reepondent has not produced any single paper to show
she was an employee under the appellants. The pnva’ tn
‘éemplamt filed by the respondent came to be
V
2. Admittedly, the appellants are the -‘fl1_V£:
saw mill. The records indicate that =
obtained licence to run the say’
_ workers to cut wood logs. not
disputed. Aooonifmg to} the I’e §pe’nzient, as
carpenter. On Wood, eustainod a
crush injury to the 1:11 his four fingers
went: out andfixf 5″‘ memrpal
base. He Home, Gokak
on to the counsel for
msponemg by one .19 Patil to the
Nursing T9]_pfL~_vS*e nature of injuries sustained by
the wound certificate. The
‘ produced before this Court clearly
g V-a’ tv: :.-39 was fiacture of 1,2,3 as 4 metacarpal
.. lefihandandcxushinjuuywhik workingin the
u x V’ of the appellants. The appclhnts have not seriously
about the discharge summary pmduoed by the
” 1*espondent~1 befim-: this Court. Initially the appellant
disputed the relationship of employer and ‘_
the Commissioner. Howcvcr, in View of the
P.Ws.1,2 & 3 coupled with 5337 b
the respondent, it is clear that ‘a,
skilled’ iaboumr under the:
contention of the appcilgants maiioxidezit has not
produced any salary -of appointment.
Usually, in thcffirxns 1§o’}§f;point:ncnt OI’d€:I’S
_ will 13:: issgaafiv in 3: Saw Mill but
the _tl_;;: discharge summaxy itself
cicarly in the-said Saw Mill as
a 95394 . s
– 3′;:Of rcspondcnt has mkcn the oontcnticm
afield” cut, owner of the Saw Mill has
V. mm. Q ‘ : payment of czompcnsation but has &11cd–‘
to pa’3.r th¢ same. Therefore, has got issued the notice mld
A “ii ttfiéfc-aiicr, ahr rcccipt of the reply, he filed a pzivatc
fgompiaint before JMFC and hcnoc them is a dclay in filing
the claim petition bcfom the Commissioner. Thcrcfom, the
‘I.
J,
‘J: :_/’1’ &.
Oom ‘ has rightly accepted the
by the rcspomcnt-claimant in ” . 2
appmaching the Commissions: 1’
No.48]’2003 filed bcfom JMFC;V%’b${t11;; mgpegjgqént to be
dismissed as the suficicnt
matcxials and to witnesses
bcfom the Jngpgrrgaut inc: wand to deny the
icamcd oqunscl for the
apPc1léints _is is tvariation in the evidence of
p.ws.2 aga} V T115 himaclf has stated before the
‘~ f35}2fiv-.3;-,,-gswas working as a skilled labourer and
‘ during the cows: of employment. Of
of the Saw Mill has not been cxam1n’ ed by
I When then: are two workers in the Saw
V’ .. Mil; of which had sustained injuries in the acciicn-t and
workcr had not been in a position to dcposc again’ at
the employer. Thercfom, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with
C ,.:
the evidence of other witnesses shows that ‘fies
working as skilled labourer in the Saw Min. ‘
respondent has not produced the B3!’
his employer. At the tune’ of issuifig
has instructed his counsel was to” V L’
R3200/— per day. (b1;siiefing…££1e_t%z(;t he gig skilled
labouier, in the % ; oertificatle, the
Comml.-33′ inner has ” respondent as
per the at Rs.2,203/–
per ‘ ~ oonsidefmg the age
menfiozoed’ has taken the age of
the res_ponxienf’asV32 and has taken the loss of earning
atn by applying the relevant factor,
at Rs.80,847/–. The learned
appellants contended that respondent suflme
only” ofearning capacity. The Doctor — P.W.4 has
V’ ~ fehat respondent sufiem only 40% disability ho the
limb but has not stated the funcfiona} disability.
V’ W’f’hc Commissioner has taken the loss of eanling capacity at
;=;.i~’–‘”””/
_,.,.«
30%. Considering the injuries susmined by
and the treatment undergone by him..a:od u
respondent is a skilled labourer
Mil], the functional disabiV1:§’t3t..Vat’A”3f:};-.3
Commissioner is excessive. mojjeogieofil suflisrs
only 23% of fimcfion§’I’«–¢;i§3;;Iji1it3_*’ ” as per the
calculations, is V of
Rs.67,362/–H ks,ér;,g4i’f:’e awarded by the
_ injvtjeresteawazded by the Commissioner
on the at the rate of 12% pa, after 30
days. fmm ._§iai:e.v’of ?aoei.ient is incorrect. The respondent»
i}’.=_{{enAt&tled.Ato mores: at 12% p.a. on the compensation
days from the date of passing of the award
i;e.,, ‘fiom_ an the date of deposit made by the
5. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The
judgment mud award passed by the Commissioner is hemby
‘modified. The respond t-claimant is czutifled to
compensation of Rs.67,362/- with interest
2&9-2005 till the date of dcpositgngndc fay”
The amount in deposit bcforc to the concerned * Compensation for payment. to rcfund of the excess by them. *sp _