High Court Karnataka High Court

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs N Ballegowda on 17 December, 2009

Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs N Ballegowda on 17 December, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE EWEIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED 'Y1---HS T}-if) 17"' DAY OF DEC EMBER 2009

BI%3I<"O'RI._iA'  :  "

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.33?/2'e§)7'{$?V(§) % T' '

BETWEEN:

New India Assu1'an.C€ C0.. Li:cE..
Brarlch Office.

N0.1200, 2"" Cross,

Ashok Nagar.

Mandya V -  
By New India ASSU.I'8.I}.('.€ Co--_.., :f;[d.',
Regional Office, Unity BL1ilding; ' '
Am1e2s:e--P. Kaiinga Rae Road,  _  '
Bangalore A 560 02.7.  " "
By its Manager.   V'

(By 811. O.  '    7

AND:

1. N'. [»3a11:;g'ow~da._ " '
Aged 3'7*y4eAa1;.is. ' .
S/:O..I_I1g€g(.)\'J_d£1'.'~ ' -
Rio Siibbanai'1sI.11i Grama.
 K;>19a1«i€-2'e'I*{0b1i, H
: '«Maddu1f *1'af'~uk,
3 _:v1a;« _dyfc_1 {)is.f_.1*is::1.

E\/£':1i(>1--',A
 S/o"E{e§~:1chappe1.
 * :R/0 S"abba11.e1h211Ei Gramai.
 , Kéiakere 1-miobli,
 Mac1c:u;~'§a1ukg
E Me-mdya Distn'ct..

-   (i~3y Sri. Marigoxvdel, Adv. for C / R1.
M/s P. Nata:'a}u <3: Associates for R2)

 "  .. APPELLANT

. . RESPOND ENTS



Ed
s

This i\/Iiseellameous Firs': Appeal is filed uncier Section 30(1)
of WC AC1 agai.Iisi' the order dated 30.10.2006 passed in WCA
No.31/2003 on {he File of the Labour Oilicrer and C0n1missior1e1'
for Workmen C0i"ripensa1.i011. Sub Division-2, Mailciya. aziwarding
£1 crompeiisaiion of Rs.2.2 1 ,692/- with interest  12% RA.

This Appeal cttiiiiiiigg on for l'1ea1'ing this clay.

I  ouri.
Cleiivered t,hei'0llc)w'i11g:  " 

JUDGMENT

Appeal is by the insurer 21gai;’as_i_..i.he ji1dlg1iie’nl_,i: .aI.l(ll’é1\J\«’8:I’C’ll’

dated 30′-*1 Oei.obe1′ 2006 on the :’§ile;”0f” C”o.1ir1.1~’ni’ssit;ii’ei*’iior

Workmen’s Compensation. l\/lE1I1V’;ly’&-_V{lI1 siiori V1*ei’e_ri~ec1V…t,Vq as ‘the!’

Commissionei”).

2. Respondeni. No.1 ihe.L(:l3si;:1iéi’fitl.«Respondent. N02 is

the owner. lleslaciiddeiiit:ri*4’0.-31:”lil’t::i*,_zi lc.;la,ii’1al petiiiori interaliae

alleging il1¢1t4′.’evliewasl*q.*o1*l%§iiig. Gpeié1t0i* 011 the Ragi ihifashing

machine 2′-mci’ ‘on i’6.;:3..,e420.03e.e.__liwliile he was on employment. he

suffered g1’ievb-«1_1s injLl1i.y{i.fi”1;si1pp()1″i’. of his claim. he aiso adduced

ihe exricieiatie of th”e~dQc:i.er. The Commissioner c0r1sidei’i3:1g the

V”If’1a’£’L:iV2{‘fi’u of ‘y’lD_’]’l:1″I.’y and also the income. calculated the

(:()1.’1:.ple’r1sail1′.iciiv»-ai.’,.Rs.242L692/– by taking into (f()I1SiClC’I’dl,lOf1 the

loss 0i’°’e211″iiiriglc:apaciiy at 75%. As against ‘the said award. this

0 V’ ‘ – 2 l’aVp:13e:2.al__ 4has'”bee ii filed.

3. S1’i.O.l\/Iahesli, learned Counsel for the irisurer

l”wVel1.emem”ly contended that. even in Case of2m1put’.ai.i01.1 under ihe

schedule i1’lj111″y._ claiinarit. is eni’i1.lecl for only 50% of the

Comperisaiion. However, in this case, 75% of the loss of earn.i11g

ea§.)aci1:y is a\v.arded.

4. The subsia.i’11,i.al quesiioia of law that raised in this
appeal is iflhai. the .insu.rer is iioi: liable as the rriachine, \–‘L-‘l_l..i'(“:’l,1 weis

alleged :0 have Caused injury. not a ITEOTOI’ Vehic:l.e..;*»m..c’l’ iioi,

Covered under the l\/ioior Vehicles Act. or under t.he””g1oli<iy.. dflinl "this

regard, the appellants counsel has ;1'ji"od1:iee(ig in,sura«nce'"policy

and siaied that. whai is insured 'is. lVlii.SLil)'ijSl'1i Power "~1'i.lrei'*~af1du

not thrashing maehirie.

5. While (T()1’1SiClt?I’i1′}gf’l,l’1.f: 1.1a:l:iire iIV1vl:L1l’y. the Commissioner

with due regard lo the medical e-\%ideii1c:e._Va;r.id. _a_l.so due regard to

the 11a’:ure”ol* a_\iC.:LTatl:(§f.’}’-113$”lTO1,1i’lCl””ihell. the injury has disabled

the e,lair11a’m’. irom c:é1i7ryiii1gVoi<2__his job that he was doing earlier, as

a result. CorI"ir:41.issioi1e.r has vijalieii 75% of loss of earning Capacity.

Ifiiiririg ihe coLi.i'se of the argument, learned Counsel
ap.pea_ei"ii'ig.V_l'or "i.h'e.vifesp()nde1'1I. No.2 ~a owner of the machine has

filed ijhe i;;:oi;)y of the policy and pointed out that, the policy

K -yeovers i'li'cr.vg_§é'aii1 {thrashing ii'1aehir1e._ which is exclusively insured

' ai:ilci'.1;_he"A.'said Copy is produced along wii;.l1 memo. The appellants

.._'::C'()L1]l1S€'l had taken time to verify ihe same and siilnmiiied that.

. _' fhe said copy be placed on record. Accordingly, same is taken on

record. The copy of the policy produced along with the memo by