National Insurance Co Ltd vs Muttheppa Siddappa Mangi on 6 January, 2010

JUDGMENT

Heard both sides finally in respect 

preferred by the insurance company  3 

quantum of compensation lllawarde-d «   the ''

W.C.Comrnissioner.

2. The main    learned
counsel for the appell*an'L is'l.fithat.ithveL'vvtiornrnissioner erred in
taking the lossof earning  when the injury
sustained   avsxcheduled injury falling in
item    .,ist Vtjyslehedule of Workrnen's
Compensat:€on~"-therefore the percentage could
not haye-hpeen  30%. Consequently, the rate

of 'interest awarded also has to be modified in View of the

'V " «recent''5;ud_"5gin:ent of the Apex Court.

 -_"'Learned counsel for the second respondent

Ayclpairnavnt, on the other hand, submitted that the

–..VC~orr£missioner took the wages lesser than Rs.100/~ per day

l .. _._even though during the relevant period the wages was

37

It

Commissioner gets modified and the claimant will be.__entit1ed
to Rs.1,20,263.4O paise as against Rs.1,37,412«/Kavsiaroed
by the Commissioner. it C it 3

5. So far as the interest, is ilcoriiceinediiit iisii’ipajfabIe

at 7’/2% from the date of api_piieaticinv.tii1 order –of’

the Commissioner and thereaftei::at..\12″/o…’ ~ C C

In the result, appenaiis-partIjf”aiioi;veo1 to the extent of
the compensati:oni_Vbei:ng The excess amount
in deposit bei;»’ref1indeE1′.:vVi_’toV: the insurance company. The

amount in depositxbe’._transferred,to the W.C. Commissioner.

Wage

ikirnvi