High Court Karnataka High Court

New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Santhosh on 21 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Santhosh on 21 September, 2010
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
-A 'S»"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA.

DATEI)'1'}~1}S THE 218"? DAY OF SEPTEZMBER_. 

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUS'1'1c_13SA.J1'1'_J."O--{:_;§1Jzi:;- _ "

M.F.A.N0. 6784 oi%i_2Qc7Ti'(w(§)A..'  

BETWEEN:

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE co. L'F'D_., 
REPRESENTED BY V "   * 
THE DEPUTY MANAGER} ;
MISSION ROAD. 
BANGALORE-27, A _ 
REPRESENTING Nsgzw JNDIA,
ASSURANCE ?_CO;.1}LTD..'.'-- A  

BIJAP,UR~_.  

{BY SRI: SDDA£1S?:AAAi' ADV.)

A_N..1?* ~

" *  _ 41 ' Q :'SANT€-if-C>St--§V  """ " "

.. _ S/O.SHD.?AJ1 SHINDHE
_ , ' E2./'Q_ 1§U1?AjwADA
'._:TQ:« MI_RAJ.

"  DIS-Ti S¢'xNGLI.

SH).-.';i\/IIQIXO

IQ

 A.  S/C) Ktsr-IAN AI--{WAi..[j;S.

'  SMT. MAT1-AURA

w/O KISI-{AN AH1vA1.1~:.
Aggger MAJOR

R/O S1---tA:~1A1>1s:T.
BEJ.-XPEER

[BY SR3: SAE\}(.}17\.NA('3(L}Efi I")A V. l:.3II{ADAR

 APPI:?LLAN'I'

 RliSI-'(:)T\?i)ii;\E'E'S

., AIJV. FOR R3]



l\.3

Tnm;MFAis1nLEo:jn33oo)cnruLc.AcTiuyuNsT
THE CHUDER DATED 12/4/07 PASSED _WJN
\VCA§fl{hKl17/O7 (DN 'nis IHLE ov "HIE wguagog
OFHCER AND cowmmsmoNmR FOR _fivoRsMENy
coMPENsNnoN,sUs£nv$KMm2,smApoR,mwAaosK;A'o
CONH¥mfi%fl1ON (H? RSALO7A84/-- "UTE £NTEREST Aiu.'
120/oP.A.ANI)E'l'C...  -- 74 

'nus zuwmAL cownmo "gon": frfi+hoR§Efis.
'finsDAYJHH2CoURTDEuvERm3THEFouxfiwwofi "*
JUDGfiENTi

Even though "tho  'for orders, with
consent, it is i.;ik<:n  inasmuch as.

the subjectfsflswis only having to the

grant of J    Hl"2;3/o .

  on 9.8.2010 to consider

the«.§ioi1o~i,vi11gVnsuiostantial question of law:--

'.'h  Commissioner for Workmcns
 having awardeci interest on the
iiaxnizird from one month from the date of award
 was in Con.sonanCe with {E16 Judgrncm. of the

Sup1'eme Court. in Hie ("$2138 of i\Eat,io1'1al

,2?/'
{gr if//W/,,--«-9



3
111su1'z:1r1ce Co. 1.101.. Vs. Mubasir Ahmed

{2007--ACJ--845[SC)/(2009) 1 SCC--550."
2. The matter arises in the foilowilig mz~1r1ner:~
Respondents are the claimants who 

parents of one Suresh. He met with an
25.9.2006 at about. 11.30 a.m.,
collision between the tempo ancziixa
said accident, the

fatal injuries. Hen(:e’.._a c1a;in=-1.;*pe:,a1;ion filed. The

COIT1p€;I1Sat”iiOIit_ViS {i.ete.rinined on the basis of the income
and the i’e1eVL1_ri’tf “zit Rs.4,0’7,484/~. The only

qiiesxfinn whi£:h”is” so-ugiht to be pressed into service in

§v3.re?3feri’t~eppeeiimttfrom which date interest at i2% is

3..,”ir’1deed, it is to be noticed that the Apex Court in

em~.__ page of PRATAP NARAIN SING}-I 135:0 Vs si-IRIMV/is

AND ANOTHER reported in1~\£R 1976 SCC 222

“has ruled that the e1w2u’d1’r1g of interest. at. the rate of

12% siiall be from 30 days from the ciate <)I'ae£’:’.-»->-“/”I”:–i

4

110%”; from 30 days from the time of award. I e:1.m of the
Vi€W’ that liaving regard to the dE?(.’.iSi()l'”l rmidered by the

Apex Court, the quesi:i<)11 of i1'1i:c:1'fcri11g with t.heV.awz1rci

_passed by the Commissioner does not §1.1*'isé;–4.:"§l'h.e

substantiai question of law is answered aCc'o.I_fding1y. 'A * ii

Appeal dismissed. No other cof1't.'<:.r1i;ic)Iii iS_.v1liI'V§_.§{vf'C11

The amount. in dopiosii,

trarasmitted to the Coxiaiérfied Comimijssiiorier for