IN ms area comma' or 1-mnmrrnxa, nmanmn;
DATED 71-113 ms 31» JULY mos/sum AUGUM,
THE !i0!€'8LE am. JUSTICE 3 3 PA-'i-':1 I
£25 xo.73§§ or * V'
am-wmx: I'
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE company umnrgn»
REPRESENPED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER,
mssxou ROAD,BANGALORE " -
REPRESENTING NEW INDIA Assofz2A:ss::E:.., "
COL'I'D.,DAVANGERE " - -
{BY SR§ ii' JAIPRAKASi~I., A1:)$z)"' "
AND:
1 JNANAP;a?A,J;n;s'i3%_@ Pfig;;A3H,.._ '
3/o TA.NAPAI.AN,.MAJif)R _ _
c/o PAFAMMA W}Q«vCHINbdIPFA_ . .
HALIYUR GRAMA, KLIR!.IBARAHAL§.i POST
CHlTRADL'RGA % 1'ALz,_n< -. v " -.
2. RAJIVC uNGIA'REDD¥'V'-- _
m.3c;»:2,' :40 cmmumsawa
OWNER QB' many No..xA..z5--5227
I -11 CROSS,"J.C".IAYOUT
»gfi:»'rRA.D_URGA_. __ Rssmmnmrrs
(BI§=s'I§*:_VN 5 §}A;YA4*§E§.rAPPA, ADV FOR' R2;
sm v__EEREs.H BUDIHAL, ADV FOR R2}
Tazsfirwa IS man u/s.3o(1; or w.c. ACT AGAINST THE
" "*JUI}xGMEIWI'v.DATED 24.7.2003 PASSED IN CASE NO,WCA/CR/109/ 200i
A ON THE. FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMENS COMPENSATHQN, CHITRADURGA, ALIDWING THE CLAIM
_ PETITTON FOR COMPENSATION.
THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
I I ' . , LEDELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGHEKT
In this appeal, the appe1lant~InsuIan.ce
chalienging the order dated 24.07.2003 :b;ie%e- _
Commissioner for Workxnexfs Compensafien, . " "
the ixnpuged award, the Comfizissfigoner
compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,€-*S,'?$5/ fsf the *
capmity suficmd on account of :resiflting in
pexsonal injuries to _
2. In an the
cIaunan' t-respongi%-§;nt:;1?fl'Q- __ personal iaju.r1e' 3
While he drive a lorry beann' g
a result of the accident, the
ciazman' t_-suifereii fimrture of T-11 vertebra. The
:,j'msved 'V Commissioner for Workmexfs
Ciiifladurga claiming compensation. He
and as also Dr.Venkatashiva Raddy, the
. . 3 . Surgeon.
' The respondents resisted the claim and examined
Vj tsitness. It was contended by the respondents that in the
3 sbsence of any complaint was and in View of the discrepancy in
;~
the description of the name of the ciaimant as ‘1’. Gnanaprakash
alias Prakash, there was doubt in the version of the
xeganding otzcunence of the accident.
4. Upon consideration of the
oral and documentary, the
accident arose out of and du1:’i;£g__the of *’
Having regard to the evklence of
that there was 35-4%; due the injury
suflered by the claimant Commissioner
asaessed the lossfof the wages
earned by the? per month and
having found to be 35 years at
the time of the relevant factor, the
amount ; ei’ was determined at Rs.1,05,755/ ~.
the appellant-Insurance Company is
appeal.
.. heve heard the Ieamed counsel for the parties and
the materials on record. It is elicited in the
It Irena” tion of the claim’ ant that his dnvmg’ ‘ licence
on 21.03.2002 and the same was got renewed by him on
33.94.2002. He has also admitted that before renewal, the
4
competent authorifies found him suitabh and fit enough to
drive the vehicle.
6. Although Earned counsel Sri.
out there were some discrepancies in the
name of the claimant in the no
complaint was mad immediately ” E
thm’ k that th1s’ Court can go V
of the jurisdiction of’ thc.. .Fa1;’or1nnen’s
Compensation Act, as theiappmciation of the
evidence has found ‘th’at on 20.092000
in which whik: he was
engaged ‘ 3
7. ‘A evidence of the doctor who has
_stated” on of the injury, the claimant was
the vehicle, but, however considering
‘ ant got renewed his dnv1n’ ‘ g license, it
_can,n<§t_ that the claimant was not totally incapacitated
H on his avocatxlon as a driver. Even though the
'm renewed, the nature of disability sujtfered by
Vtheficlaimant as a result of the compression fractun: of T–11
t. bm will certainly afiect him in continuing his duty as a
driver efiicicntly. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the loss of earning capacity assessed V.
Commissioner at 35% deserves to be reduced to 't -.
8. Though learned counsel vf.r.-r”theA apupe’ H 2 it-‘}1.is1v14’r=an_:,. bet u ‘ a
Company submits that the loss of
be taken at 209/o only, I
contention, particularly kAeepin.g:zthe. and
cimunrzstanoes of this sjapxeach adopted by
the Commissioner claimant at
Rs.2,000]– ot1_ly ‘ng on his duties
as a drivexj es? asserted that he was
camsng in my View ends ofjustioe will be
met if the ‘esuesscd- ” 4’ ‘tit 30% and the compensation is
. _ alsowseen from the award that the interest is
from the date of expiry of 30 days from the
dateeft : Since the Mary sustaiaed is not a schedubd
Claimant is entitled for interest with eflect fiom the
30 days from the date cf the awani passed. by the
h )1jamissioner, as laid dos by the Hc_vn’ble Supreme Court in
mcm&0fNA1’&AL ECOflPANYHW!’.HJV&
mmmawam. reported inA.I.R. 2oo7.s.c,
10. In the result and for the fomgoing,’_.fiie’
allowed in part. The compensation ..
entitled is dctcmained at Rs.70.941 R5)?
The claimant shall be entitled ti:1– ;ntem%a: gm .
from the date of expixy of3O day§’f:;§’)vn:a _f.he Vdafaé of of the
order by the Commissksifiér is The
amount in depositshall ‘AA{11g%..’Commissi9ncr for
Workmexfs disbursing the
same in ‘—.’I*}1e*_<:xcess amount, if any, in
deposit shallibe Company.
sa/-:
Judge