IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUILLBENCH AT DHARWAD H ,
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JANUARY, 2gI'0,'V"- - A.
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNAA'I"HA1\I.:' . V
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAI;'N'O.A1;3;L3/_2oO5'{MV)-I
BETWEEN:
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
No.57, VINAY COMPLEX, V.V.ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 044, BY ITS
MANAGER. A ._
(BY SR1. SSHRISHAILA, ADV.) "
AND:
I. SIDDAPPA, ACé'ED"23~.YEARS.,A " A
S /O HUCI-I.APPP,:jMENFsIG<I 'I
DRIVER, R /'O. SHIIEER,
EAc;ALKO'I*,~ TO. AND DI,ST.._
2. M / S VI NAY TRACTORS, V « .. _I A . I
AT K.H.ROAD, BANGALOR'E?_56O 02?,
BY ITS PRO_PRIETO_R. = ~~
(BYSRII K;.ANANDKUMAR, ADV. FOR R1
" " _ SR} _BAB§_ ADV, FOR R':2)"' '
"= ff: .. S ' ._ APPELLANT
...RESPONDENTS
APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE w.C.
IA.C"T--..,.AOAINS«T"THE ORDER DATED 20/1/05 PASSED IN CASE
NC,WCA/SR-312003 ON THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER FOR
WORKMEN COMPENSATION, BAGALKOT, AWARDING COMPENSATION
OF RS.2,49,8'77/-- WITH INTEREST AT 12% AFTER 30 DAYS FROM THE
S DATE OPACCIDENT TILL THE DATE OF ORDER.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is by the insurance company “cia’lli’ng’.jn
question the order of the Commissioner .ayva:rding
compensation to the respondenbelraimantiiHaindf’the.i_i_main it
rievance of the insurance icomhiian .. thatiikthe
Commissioner for Workmen’iCompensation_ erre’cl:”in..taking
disability percentage at_65%.
2. Learned flappellant Sri.
S.Shrishaila, of accident and
the emplo3:”er–e,.tnp’io$*Ce aspect, argued that the
only Commissioner is that disability
percentage though Doctor had put it at
50% and from this,..i~’the claimant had obtained driving
p_ 1ice’ri’ce:’for heayy”tra_n.sport vehicle on 23/ 08/2003 and this
‘itself showfs_d”th_at the claimant had no such disability.
‘l’he’refore,i–u.”gjthAevicommissioner could not have taken the
‘V disability 65% andmawarded a sum of Rs.2,49,8’77/–.
i:=.,Ti1erefore, the quantum of compensation is on the higher
and hence the appeal be allowed.
%
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent–claimant submitted that no such contentionliwas
put forward by the appellant–insurance company
Commissioner and it is not now open to theiiappeilant putt’ it
forward such a contention in ‘-this”‘naippeal;’~
submission made is that the-diaimanti put his!’
income at Rs.4,000/~ per month-with Rsi[50.]fv-V. asvfbata as a
driver, yet the Comn:.i.s:s,ionier ;_hadV._’,’tval{en the income at
Rs.3,000/– per month. ‘V
4. “the”ii,_abov.e’ submission so far as
the “conicerned, no doubt, the
Comrriissioner same at 65% and in the
process has_gobsie1’V.ed,_v the claimant has got very deep
concealed fracture__in,the pelvic region, number of pieces
«mere the pelvic region and the claimant suffered
ii’fro1r1,*comip”1″esai’ire myloneuropathy of the lumber spinal cord
ancl’ therefore, the Commissioner took the percentage of
at 65%. No doubt the learned counsel for the
i appellant submitted that the claimant obtained licence to
“drive HTC on 23/08/2003, but on going through the order of
>3
the Commissioner as well as the order sheet maintained by
the Commissioner, it becomes clear that no such
as is now canvassed before this Court was put
the insurance company before _the_ Coimmissioneril it
therefore, see no case being made, o1;jt”bflr the “arppellaiatl’for
this Court to interfere with ethe.._Vorder=.of the l’Com1nissiioner.’t. ‘
Moreover, no substantial question law also appears to
arise in this case.
5. For-the abfiovej reasonsfihe appeal is dismissed.
However, onlyl” rate”of.i;1terest is concerned, it
is to be y’1’1″lOC_lifl’L:”?Cl =.7%%=. frorriwthle date of the claim
application till theijdaiteof order of the Commissioner and
thereafterwardsiiat il*2F’_/ciittilillpiélyment is made. Except to the
above «aspect of irriodvification of the rate of interest, the
l’eappe’al in other respects. Amount in deposit be
transferred to’_’*t.he; W. C. Commissioner.
Sd/C
judge