I
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24"' DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH B
M.F.A. No. 6579 of 2008 (WC) '
BETWEEN:
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD;
DIVISIONAL MANAGER ~
NEAR VEG MARKET, I)AVANCERE=,
BY NATIONAL INSURANCEC'..Q";~..LTD.'@ _ -
REGIONAL OFFICE. SUBBARAM'»COMP'LEXA -
144, M.G.ROAD. BANCALORE_.5B0001 "
BY IT'S MANGER ' '
.APPEI.IANT
(BY AIEVOCATEI
AND: I I I
1. S/O';IA"L"EEL SAB
..ACEI*) 42 YRS,_I§§[(.") GOUSIA NACAR
" OSDU-RCA TOWN
:G;S§"«;i{AI5IB'i;}LLA , MAJOR
_ " S/O' LAXMI BUS OWNER
' .._uR/AROBARI I>ET. HOSDURGA TOWN
" " " ...... ..RESPONDENTS
SRI.S.C. VIJAY KUMAR. ADVOCATE FOR R1)
I TI-{IS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF
WC. ACT AGMNST THE JUI)C_M1′–:N’I” DATED 25.01.2008
PASSED IN WCA:NFC:37’5/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE
“}
LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN COMPENSATION, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
CHITRADURGA, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF RS.
1,12. l40/- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PA.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS___DAY.
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWINGIW
J U 3′) G M E N ‘1’
Though this appeal is listed for
consent of the learned counsel
the same is taken up for final I I K I
2} The Claimant the
bus bearing registraiiioiii. Thefsaid bus
met \7§fith__ 04.08.2004 and in the said
accidentptlhe clainiant”feifii/er) and the conductor have
gotgjnjured. regard the claimant-driver filed a
.’C.1[8i:IIi inter alia alleging that, on account of the
llinjuriels ‘ls_L1_s’t.;a1ned by him in the said accident, he is not
in positi’on to drive the bus or any other vehicle. He
fu’rt.herTalleged that he was drawing salary of Rs.4,000/W
lgtnllland also Rs. 50/– per day, as Bhatta.
3
3) Before the Commissioner. the claimant and
the Doctor. who treated him, were examined, and in
support of the claimants case. the Doctor has Vstated
that the claimant has suffered 20% disabilitymto
leg and 30% disability to his right shoulder:
hand. On the basis of the eVid_venc’e’of
in the absence of the evidence of th.e”Docto1f.’1n’ ‘1’e’ga’rd”toV’=,
the percentage of total 1oss”V’o:f”earning._cap-acity of the
claimant, the Comrni.s:sivOne:’n.hats” assessed sarnie at 25%
and taking into considperationivpthie }fT1().’I’I£h1.f,-V'” income of the
claimavntu ” _v ~. determined the
compen’sat’ion ‘ 40/– with interest at 12%
pa.. 5 — .4
“t’-Sri.O.’VV’M’ahesh, learned counsel appearing
ithet’Ktppellantwlnsurance Company contended that,
as *~..__the_re no evidence of the Doctor as regard to the
*1o’ss in the earning capacity of the claimant, the
‘ Commissioner has erred in assessing the loss of earning
~~.eapacit:y of the claimant. at 25%. He further contended
5’1″?”
4
that the claimant alleges that he is not in a position to
drive any vehicle. but. he has not surrendered his
driving licence. He also contended that, in the
of any material evidence in regard to
income of the ciaimant, thempCo1n;nissione’rdhhas
erroneously taken his monthiy:’~:iinLi;foirne
and it is on the higher “and it has
Further. he contended thatAc_thaievra’te of interest at 12%
pa.. awarded by the not just and
reasonable anciithe be ‘;reduced.
x learned counsel for the
Respondent¥c1aiinant” contends that the accident is in
theaiyevar 200?? was working as a driver of the
. job like this, i.e. the owners. owning
not maintain records in respect of
or employment of the workmen. in such
A circtimstances, the monthly income of the claimant
taken by the Commissioner for the purpose of
determining the compensation is just and reasonable
9%
f
AA
/*”‘””‘:”
5
and it does not call for interference by this Court. As
regard t.o the assessment of disability by the
Commissioner at 25%, the learned counsel for the
respondent–c1aimant. relied on the cross~exarnin”at’io»n”–of
the Doctor, wherein. no suggestion is
Doctor in regard to the total lossot”. ori
disabiiity t.o the whole body oris
question of law raised in in
6) Taking ir1″t~o_’ facts and
circumstances of the t.he injuries
sustained ‘bytire.»ic1aim.ant4respondent, evidence of the
Doctor, I_ am évihéypbs-131111011, that the Commissioner
hasfiacorrectlynitairen the monthly income at Rs.4.00O/W e
~ and correct.iy assessed the percentage of loss of earning
‘capacity 7.o.t'”the claimant and moreover, the grounds
2 oi’i’aw.Vi”f{e11ce, I do not find any good ground to entertain
Z appeal.
raisedJ”in.this appeai are not the substantial questions
/
.&»i=’vr
6
7) in so far as the rate of intteresti at 12% pa,
awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, it is reduced to
71/2 % pa, from the date of petition iii] the date of
judgment and 12% pa., from the date of judg1:IiVentV’tiil
the date of deposit or payment.
With the above modit’ieat.iQn”‘0n1y “the V’
rate of interest, this appeai stands «.
The amount. depositec1«v__h’e.fp0re.this be”
transferred to the:…C0m.:’riiss:i0n’e.r fo’r'”~W’i)rkmen’s
C0mpensia’ti0hn_, Chit.radtirga. _
361/
Judge