A' 'V V' 1 . ['\'5;--&i3'::l'!€:i..r"*iV.. '
SZo..E§as.a{3=pa4_@.fiasavarajappa,
.é'i~G j;,4e'a rVs",'».AVRajen_cI_';a Coffee Ltd .§
- V»
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EA;§;'EA'L:c:~':éij*E-.T' ~
DATED THIS THE 313* DA\{.QE_MA'r;'
BEFORE _ V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE 5
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPf;iA1%.L:'i:\!»£i};"..9{22.i' 'EE.'.E2,Q_f§7(wc}
BETWEEN: V « V
M/S Unéted India_E£'n§ura;ii.'Cé' '
Branch office, ;.'><;'M1..V_P;'c:a<:i=-._ 2:
Chikkamaga!.wV,44 " .
Now Rep. byD53/':'sion'a.'i»M'a.f;--agea:;
Divisi0n_a.l,__B.'H.,_R0a;1_,__ ' "
Shimoga. " E ». ' Appeiiant
(By Sri : _V v'er:k_3 ,' '
A N _ z A V
G~hAa'mE:an'a'i1<;Est;a'te,
Bal'E_hc«nr7.u r," '
Kappa. .T'a.{u kg'
" Ra_jendra Coffee i_td.,
- "Gha_n{:.anaika Estate;
Beiehonnur,
Respondents
(By Sr; K Gavindaraj, ‘Adv. for R1
Sri Pradéepz fxéaik K; Adv. for R2)
r
E
This MFA is filed under Section 3€3(i.}__,§:i§..W.jC’.A«.:t’~
against the judgment dated 2.4-;E.r_20{3f? ‘;jeéV;~.-teéji in V
WCA.NF,No.25/2005 on the file of the _t__ai3o’t;r’1{3’Fti_Ceg~~.r§3’n{§T_ A’
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensé:w_tEo’n, Sub .D§~.(i:;§Ci~n~°”–l.
I, Chikmagatur, awarding a Ccirnpensatien of?-;%.,.<I;'3;,'2Ci'z3/?'i
with interest @ 12% p.a. '
This Appeai Coming on fer._fExna.i_' hearinig"rttiiismtiiey, the
Court delivered the foiiomng: _ ,
The 1" respendent-.r~f%i:ett» before the
Commissioner! 4' V' Cornpensatien,
Chikkkamageigrtéjé;fiegei'i*istT'.:t.t.eh"resnoindent/empioyer and
the apieeltent/'ijrtsveureir that he was an
agricuiturei..V_eooiie-in of the 2"" respondent and
while gvdvistchairigi-rig"'the' virork, met with an accident,
'V:._.éusté"E'neéi"fernpieynrienti injuries and thereby iost the
The 2"" resgsondent/empioyer appeared
i 'befcinnew the €:e_:t:efiAhwissioner and fifed statement admitting the
'A~.__Vfetettheitgwezaimant was ernpfoyed in the estate and that he
wages of '<'*14§O.62r He aise admitted that;
the ceurse ef emptoyment, the accééent having
feccurred, injury was sustained, which redueee the earning
2;.
—– -.
counsel submits that the evidence of ~
indlcate that, there is tptal permahe_f:pt,pd_lsab:«l’s’t$i ‘”
the Commissioner is justified En p.as:»3’i”hgh’ the””a§éé1a:9e:l.f~.,,l’¢’}%;:
€’3,41g,2G8/-.
4. Sr: Pradeep fialp’p’ééVl:lng for
the 2″ respondent conteéhdesppl paid to the
claimant was the number
of days of rance cover issued
by the on the appellant by
the Comrhlséloher ls.’just§fié’d,,”f.:l
“Cl£.3nsi<Vie'r.ilAl.qTlQ"'the§ rival contehtipns and the record,
.q_iiest'l:.in _fé:._determination Es:
Commissioner 23 justified in taking the
4§’\;§g*e«s”‘pf the claimant at 2’3;OQO/’- pm. and %n
»Vp___holdlhg that there 13 permanent disability?
6. In the objections atatemeht filed by the employer
30.9.2005, he has admitted that the Claimant was an
employeé and sh 3G.3,2OG5 while wagkmg M1 the efiiateg
met with an accident, sustained injuries and.
the medieai expenses. He has
daimam’. was 38 years ef e,g»_e and “was ;:{ri%2x;%ki’rw<:; i:.h'e«H
monthiy saiary. He has mentiofi'e§"the
In View of the said statement efid efxje' e:(§dee'ee"er1"'eecord,
the reiationship of emp1'ey?ee the
respondents is _we:E:I:' rolf and pay
Hst of the . Véeerusal of the said
document of days worked by
the {fay being $57.50. per day.
Since the e’Ea_§manxt” fer 22 days in February,
,_2eosss,eég&rages érsseeegges/~ was paid. In the cross–
it has been suggested that the
wegeee_«pe’i5″_~eg_ae:;’$351/– per day. In the circumstances, the
__wage’s. »ca-;e’be:””teken at €2,130/– pm. There is no dispute
i_f.i”a—3t__t_he age of the cieimam’. was 38 years and the reievant
sfe’.ete–r…eppE§ceb§e being 189.56.
7, The evieence of Dr.¥vLG.Sridhar weuid indicate
that the eieimerzt was treatee’ by?’ him ‘fer the injuries
M”
246.200? téii the date 01′ ciepesit
excesg amount be refundabfe to the
in the registry’.’*{;:h’:§ j–,? “v»..
appeitant. S
No Costs.
Ksj/~