V _ P:'§~?as}1a_
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
Dated the 20m day of August 2009
ZBEFORE:
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE : V.éAGANb§;*§TI'€i,}'§§ %% '
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA£;'N'o.« .32'99:1f:;:<)04: v{i;vC;~,
BETWEEN :
M] 5 United India Insurance Ggfiapany 'Lf_,(3;;,
Regoriai Ofiice, No.25, '
Sha11ka3:na1'ayana B13ii«:E:11g,«'M.G;~}§o££d,
Bangalore-:--56O om. T %
Rep. by its Asst. Manager; _ '
.. .Appe11aI1t
M Advocate. )
A N D
1.
S/0 z'-'x}";d11i1a,__M.§1j0r;'
' 'R';'_Q HoI'a.p_2ete, Chitradurga.
% [S/c"?.%Pyarejan, Mam
'- __ .€)w.i';:?_r car KA-19---M-175,
V R/.Q'f§i.*a$axma Talides Road,
-~ C1_:i?;1".*3;{iurga.
~ . ..Resp»011C§t:nts
( By Sri D.R.Naga;ra§, Advmata for R-1. )
Miscelianeous First Appeal filed under Secticm
V' 39(1) {If WIS. Act against the arder dated 19.1.2004
passed in WCA/CR192/()2 on the fiie of the Labour
Qffiilfil' and Commissiuner for W0r}s:I11e13.'s Compensation,
Ch:it3'aduI'ga, awarding compensatien of Rs.1,5'?,5_?'2/-
with interest at 12% p.21. and directing the appeilant
herein {:0 deposit the $3313 within 30 days %
of zzardar.
This appeal coming on f01f:J
caurt delivercci the fellowingp __ _
JUDGMENT.
,.....-..-.-...n_..............-.-........
This appeal is i3§;~._t11e (railing
in qucstion the order vAA¢L;f$§ 11IfliSSiOI1€T for
W01'kmen's awarding
compensati§on_:-{Q .réé§pdnd¢:nt¢Ciaimant in a sum of
Rs.;5?;572/m *f -- ° «
2' The for the appeilazltdnsurance
contezfjfiied :':hat the respondent»-clain1aI1t did
n{.at., suffczr i::1}u1y tr: his eyes and muchless lass of
vision though the accziclant is said 1:0 have
% omfifiifiéJQfi:éii2002,the:flaknan:<fid nattakt any
K fair few days and oniy on 11.5.2002, he went
— the de-star and go: the: Wound certificate as per
.’E”i’x.P~$ and the said} doxzumant also (1963 not indicate
any damage to his eyes or any loss Gf visian and apart
%
from this, the: Certéficats sf ciisability 313 per Ex?’ 30 was;
aiso obtained lofzg after the accident 911 5.7.2008 and, £311
betwefin {ha said period: :10 matfilial is placed
that the claimant took a11}; treannent fer .
65:5. Under: i:hes:~e {3iI’C¥.lI}i1StaI1(3:@S;,_ tI1e’.”té¢ji3;-1§o’::ii:~3eVi;tior:; “‘
awarded by the Commissiener éa111:7’;ct ‘b«=;=.su$t}a 1’r’:§i:dA
iaw ‘
3. O1} 81$ ether hand, fer the
respo11dent-ciaima11t. careful perusal 9f
the documents gnroduce-évihsvouid that, in the
accideizt in c;ué5i;ir)i3;,.T»t§i1::’ sustained inguries to
his lcft eyé: repczrt E);-:.P–3 showss that
U11fff.§~”%i:.”§¥’Ei1’i§{31€SV W€F§___jI2V0iV€d in the accidsnt and ail the
‘v;céf1ic1csv’¥i?¢r:%j”‘ fa-umi damagad on the front sida and the
\§i§.:s3:£bw.V swas aiso found damaged. Apart fmm
thisé,” th%.§x?€$fi1nd certificate EXP-5 ciearijjz estabiishes the
V’ ‘»:i:ai:1ageV’ caused 110 the iefl; eya 0:? tbs claimant. Memiy
‘ Esizcause tihera was some delay in approaching tha doctor
‘4 éné geiifing the wanna certificate Elx.P~«5, that €i{)f:S net
mean that the claimant did not sufibr any it: his
left. eye. As far as the pameritage cf loss cf earning
3?”
capacity is concamed, the $i1b1IiiSSi()I1 illaét-:2 is that the
ardex’ cf the C{}IEII1iSSiOI’1€I’ arequiras 110 interfémncsfi’««.._ _
4. Having thus heard both SiCiCS, I V’
agree with the submission of t11e.<1c2m.1ed–'_4Cm1:i:§£:l .ft:r]tiiL2
.=§ipp€Ha11t~II"iS{13i'8;I3CEt Compariy . ._
certificate Ex.P–5 amply ciéar. "i€:fl;: eye V
0f the claimant was d:amagi2; accident that
OC€1lI’I’6d 0:1 was dliving the
vtzhicie, S’i1s:i;aj3j1§:fi sf vision and on
examiizatiuzx .<:§i"v£j1.§'c1éii!:§ia31t,." ths cjoctor has noted that
ttierfgt was.__ditnif;iS}2ed.ig'isi<3n in the Rafi: eye and the
Qiattéf was the ophthainlaiagist on 4.'7.i2(}O3
._?3.'?1..vfV31 'apéxjian I'€€?f3iV€':d was that the left rsrye cornea 8.
Ii-tfit,.Ie:»’haZy”.’a1″i:i”there was 210 vision and I16 p-erceptitm of
.. Unfiér these circumstances, because of few Ciajm’.
‘V V’ »§e1a§; iii’ approaching thfi cioctor and getting the weund
‘ {ii:1*ti§cata E:-:.P-5, one cxammt disbeliavs {be case of the,
.4 W’c:1aima:i1t that in the accident in qufistion, ht? had
sustainfid injmy tn his left eye.
it»
‘I
5. As far as the percemgage af 1033 sf ealnixzg capacity
is concelned, though it is opined by the {30m11iiSe3i{>1j€:1′
as 49%, the submission {sf the ieaxned V’
app£~:11ant-]nsuI’anc&: Cio111pany iS fZfiVE1’i’,.«.3S”.it is :$;_C}ieci’ui€:-.A
injury, the percentage could n0tV”h2i§r§:. beez’:_–. 1110176′
3()%. Thmzgh the: 1car11$g- x.f%. L ‘V % AV
E». 5 .:;?,qns£§qLi¢11t1y, samaunt awarded gets mduced
~.__,3’:Q 1éaid’As:xtentV”éiiid in piazza ef the amount given by
»i:V11§ (;Zz)i1:1§ii5§;~:.i_c%s=11er, the claimant xvii} be eI1tit}<:*d ta
R:s;'-«ET, 13,; 1??) g
Ag "far as €116 interrast is £30I1{3éI'I}f:C§, in View of the
'Aip=c:.;;" Court decisian reperted in 23009 AIR sew 371?,
-»v–t;i;1<.~: i11terest payable wiil be ai: '?%r§% during the pendcerzcy
0f the matter mid at 113% after the date of adjudication.
('I:on$€queI1t1y the arch:-zr of the COH]fl1iSSiO1§€T
staI1{1$ Iflfldififid as abeve by aiI()W:i:I1g the awppeaij
The SXGSSS amount in depasit. be refurgtied "
app<':flant—}';."1s1n"3.z1ce Company.
JUDGE
eke]-