M.F'.A.N0.4065g201O
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 6?" DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH T T' "
M.F.A.No.4065/20 10
BETWEEN :
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.L'I'D.
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER
MISSION ROAD ' ._
BANGAL-ORE--27,
REPRESENTING NEW INDEA ASSURANCE?
CO.L'I'D., PET WELL HOUSE . " * . '
L.B.S. ROAD, VIKARALE SOU'i3?71VO'' : _
MUMBAL83. _ APPELLANT
1. SR1 A.H3FAROOQ A
8/0 A.H.ALEYABB'.A .
1\/LMOR, HUz;1AMI:NI«:'
. '.'flI2Rl\/[ARTQOR POST... «
" _U1.LALAV£LLAOE
' _ 'MANOALORE...
2. e SR1 s;sA_LE:EM
':3/11sMAIL.K1~1AN
1\/:AJ(ZJR. 'Eff-{AN CO'i"1'AGE3
KATEEMBI COMPOUND
.. VLKUDROL1
V MANGALORE
Sm'. KHAIRUNMSA
D /O ABDUL REHAMAN
MAJOR
M.¥'.A.N0.4065 4 2010
4. T.K.KUMEBBA AZI
S/O KHADAR AZI
MAJOR
5. SMTALIMAMMA
D / O T.K.KUNCHIYABBA AZI
RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 ._
ARE R/AT KOMARANGLA MANE
KOTFEKAR POST
MANGALORE DISTRICT V ‘
{BY SR1 NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADV, “FOR __
SR1 RVESHWAJITH SHETIY. ADv.’E_0I2 R}:
SR1 ROHITII GOWDA, ADV. FORE-R-.’2_; ‘I
MISS ASHIKA K.S., ADV.__FQR _ _
M/S FEKARUNAKAR ASSOCIATES,§ADVSIfFOR R3 TO 5)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/AS”3Q{1] O§f’W.C.AC’f-AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT DATED :23.’2..20;1o 1?A_S:SED’~~II\*..wcA;’cR–54/2007mE
ON THE FILE 0F_V”:jHEi:IiI;A?SQUR’:)FF1cEI2 AT\?D”‘COMM1SSIONER
FOR WORKMEE-N’S’ 44.cDI»IpEN-S-ATION’; D_;K.,_ SUB DIVISION-1,
MANGALORE, AwA:’2D~ING”A c0I\2II?_EI~ISA’IION OF RS.3,87,315/»
WITH INTEREST 12%, I3_.I>I, ‘EI30M’~.1..S,_9»;3200S TILL THE DATE
OF DEPOSIT IN COURT.*:_ * .
THIS MFA 4cD’IvI1I\§’C}’j««0N’v«EOE ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE”Ef’O.LLO_WING:
amJUfidMENT
leartted Counsel for the parties and
Uft€”..v:iv’I”I1AV_IK’V)v’?u’;;gI1€C1 judgment and the questions of
Vt law f<5I?mu__1'ateti' tin the Memorandum of Appeal. In my
the only Substantial question of iaw that would
_' ari'Se"'f<3r consideration is as to Whether the interest
':_ aWa:rded is Contrary to the law laid down by the Horfble
Iiitixy
§'
M.F.A.N0.4065{201O
Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Mohd.
Nasir (2009 AIR SCW 3717)’?
2. Learned Counsel on both sides submit thatrss. 2
the judgment of the Suprenie C ” ‘ « Court, I’ C«
W.C.Comrnissioner ought to have awtirde’dA.intere_st’
the date of the claim petition at Ctheeiiratevhof
the compensation amoun”t~.__and.=ét ufa.t_e oi’h1’2%”V4p.a.
from the date of the impugned
3. Accordingljr, rate 3 interestiiéiwarded by the
Commissioner sbove terms. The
amount lying in Court shail be
tiansfened to Vxthet Commissioner for
\2\J’or1:<men_?s§*.:Con1pe11s:;iti'on"forthwith.