Loading...

Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs V Shivanna S/O Veerabadrappa on 18 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs V Shivanna S/O Veerabadrappa on 18 November, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
JAAIJAA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS T I {IE EST" DAY OF NOVEM }33£_ER. 2009

BIEF O RE

THE }-i.ON'BLE IVIRJUSTICEE SUB!--I'ASi'I BADI

NHSCELIANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.1668/20o8"{'wrg3....j:  ;_. é 

BETVVEEN:

Oriental Insurance Co. Lt.(i.,
Division Office No.10,
No.213~217. 2"'-' Floor,

I11 Main, 41" Cross,
Chamarajapetg

Bangalore -- 560 01.8

Now by Regio11g11'VOfi7iéE:';7',  
Leo Shopping Co.m5p1cj_x, ' '

44 / 45, Re s1den_cy*vRoa'C1::, 
Bangaloreze 5601G7?,5,_ "

Rep. by ii.s7Ma'-rie1ge:4'EC-~\[é1;déi'xr;}j'::n_ "

(By Sri. M. Aron' P()111§£1[Ju;3fJ7."Aéiik]

1.

. V_._ Shi’«’éi1]_r1E1.;”

‘ S/’o Vec1’a:1%;h’adrz1;.3pz:,
Aged .35 y£::’a1’s,
g R/0 ~.Ma_t1CI’1a.11aha11Ii.

n Ambeief Hobli,
~ Aimiieii ‘.}f’aIuk.

‘ V’f32w..r1g211ore {R} D:’stri<:~.1,.

…APPELL/–‘xNT

2. M.\/. Varalakshmi.

Major.

No.12. Subbaiah Lame.

Airport, Road.

Murugeshpalya.

Bangalore

(Owner ofTat.a Sumo Bearing
No. KA«O3~B–594)

{By Sri. Girimallaiah. Adv. for C/R. 1]

This Miscellaneous Fi1’st Appeal; 1’l’:5″.I:;iIf3d’.’LIv1.1(flQ1;\ii)’E.N5’1f$1′ .;.v _

30(1) ofW.C. AC1, againsl ihejiidgii-i._e11t’. daijecli 19. 1’1′ ‘.’2,0QV7 p_assed_ V

in WCA/NFC/C]’.NO.45/2005 011′-.i_l’ie._A file oi7._1.1*ie_ Lalt)oui*”‘OI”fiCei’ V

and Commissioner for Workmen Comper_1saiion,; Sub-[:giVisionw6.
Bangalore, awarding a QQn1penAsa’gio:1– 6-E Rs.2,83.?766/- with
interest”. @ 12% RA. ‘ ‘ ‘ ~ V

This appeal coming o_n”‘i’oif day, the Court”.
delivered the follouféng; A V = ~ ~ ”

“”” ” ;n.I’i3GMfiVi\r”*_1*

i.A.l\:.io.E’I/O8 is fl’)édfilOEf:KVC’€}l1dOHE1l.i()I1 of delay.

Accepting i’he_f.caL_isVe”° shown. delay condoned. With

J (t0IlS€li1_tCffI?l?1VAil,G.i’ is takexrplp for final disposal.

V is by the EI1sL11’2111Ce Company qLI€Sl’.iOI}lI1g

the qLl,§1l1l.LlIF1 o’i’3V.(:€)111pens;11′:ion awarded by the Commissioner for

_ . fWor.l:nie11~ Compensatiori. Bangalore.

_ r_b3.”fRespondei1t: No.1 was a driver. While he was dEivi1’1g a.

“~.%I:T’E1’f.21€SLIl’I1O bearing No.KA.03 B694, 1’1 mel. with an elcciderii, and

suffered leg injury and he was Heated by the d()<:to1'. I–le filed

a. claim pe1.it,io1'1 azllciggimg that. during the ('.()Ui'Sf;? of empboymexii.

-3-

as a driver in the esiabiishme1it_ of 1*espor1dem No.2, whiie
driving the vehieie. he siiffered i1’1ju1°y and he entitled for
compensation. He claimed that, he was eainiiig Rs.4,000/W and

on account. of the i11j1e.1ry he cannot new drive the vehieiex.

4. in support of his claim petition, he izhe .

doctor who in his evidence has stated that, I’CS§)’O’1″1″dE§’I1i.VN().”§V h:_-is”

suffered fracture of both the bones oi?_v1’igh-is };1gxi.

on Plaster 01′ Paris [POP]. “ihei’1’e4ai’i.e1′,V”he was”opeiffiiiteedil ai’id_:”;

iriierlocking nails were inseri”edf’=.._A.fiei* ?.’41″C«’r’i”i’.iI’1’1eI1’£.V} he was

discharged on I.9.2005;:.’i’-Efle led evidence

examined him on 25.5.2007y_a_.f1d:issuedI_*Vyeu1id eeiiiiictate

inieralia si.a’tviz1g”g that; resp’oncieii”ih”No.1 had suffered 59%

disability on fineiighi;.yiowfei\}:ii”i’ib zfuid 19.6% disabiiiiy to whole

body. HO\v€\?e_r,’ he ais()””sVia,_ted,_ disabifiiy is ()E~p€1″11]E1I”l€1’1l, in

riat-yu.1’e 4:_3i1~c1 y_’éhe4’eia.iV_in’a”riiixeageirioi drive any vehicle, however. in
eiii-shs~ex5ui’ii,;1ai.iohHsiiggesiion was made to whether ihe
eiaiiiitaiiii ‘ariy oi:her vehicle. He has admitted t,hal:. with
Ce1’i’.ai!i”tiii’i’ieiiii.y can drive Eight. n’1oi’:o1* vehicle. The Tribunai
4eonside’i’i:1§aihe’ evidence of the doctor, leaking ihe disability of
K 1’e::3..ooii.dei1t No.1 at 60%. dei.ern’1ined the eomperisatiori at
It is this judgnieni, is (tailed in C{{.£€S1.i()I1 by the
.:”4.i’J”‘;f=$E.’a”.{:E1]1CT€’. Compaiiy oriiy on the grouiid that, when the ci()ei.()i-

stated that diSE1biiii”_V to the whole body beiiig 19.6%, taking

44s

the disability at 60%. is pt?!’-SE conirary to the evidence on

record and the judgment is based on no evidence and ma1i’eri.2,i1.

5. On the coni.ra1’y. the Eearned cotinsel ztppeaiwing for the
Claimant submitted that. no doubt the doctor has st.ai:e’ds. the
disability of whole body is 19.6%, however. in the
also stated that. with this irijiiry the ciaimant, cgtii-riot:
motor Vehicle and taking this e\»’iden-§:;eA.AiV {fie
d€’t€F’}’I1iI16d the disability of the Clailllébtlit
that. merely because the cie1i.r11etnt;..,:yyiit’.h light’
motor vehicle. it cannot. said thé1t=..ns_eEetVi’:11§t.r1t iseffectively can

drive the Vehicle and earn his }_ive1ih.oo’d.

6. Doctor w]:1o.:’iiease.Vbee:31″ examined in the case is not a

doctor who Vo«pe1’ated._ ‘the ug.I’a1ima1it.. however, based on the

_.v::1edicai.5–y:. report: a.f1’d.___the. ciocurnertt. he has assessed the

“disa:bi’.i._ty. .,E\TCj?4Jé1£?C€p[iI1g the said evidence oi’ the doctor. the

disztbiii–t;y at 19.6% to the whole body. even t.2ikii1g

into coi*isid’e1’a’t.io11 that. the ciaiizimit: may have some diffieuity in

driving.i’:he’yehicie. it is not the case of the cfaimarii that he is

.’_tjotéi1.1Vy’disab1e to earn his Eivelihood. If that. so. {he disabiiity

-._4éisst’éssed by the eonuiiissioner at 60% is not: based on any

evidence and this is 21 siihstaritial question of Eaw that arises for 3

coiisideratiori in this etpgfieeti.

7. 19.6% disability to the whole body IIIJTIE-ly not by iiself

Could be deciding l’act<)r E15.-5 1'(?g§e1i'd to the ea1'n.i1'ig capacri1y.*- ;iS..tl'1e

doctor has stated that; with this disability. the c§_l;iiiIi–é§_I1~!.:_i;1;;iy'_

have difliculty to drive the light motor «tlieee

Circumsiaiices. looking into the 1"1at.ui'i? ofi_i1jji,.i,1y'._ait1d'also1.;-ikiirieg

into COIISld€i"E£1lOi1 the ex-*idei'1Ce of the 'do('It–.o11 ,fi:h€lVl tiliat; the

disability Could be reduced to as ."E§')O0/fl and
Compem-3atio.n Could be the
relevant muli.ipliei'. the claiI1iant._ .:f.;Q'x.;LCOI"I1p€i1SaUO]'l of
Rs.1,-41 ,883/»« /~ as against

.;v

the compei1sat.i:'oh :-_66/?.

8. Cf_féLiIl1’E1.rll4’K’lSv€lllill€d_>fD.If’U’1€ iitiierest at the rate of 7.5%
from the datexot’petitviotiatillgli.’hedt1l.e of jtidgnieiil. and 12% from

the date ‘£7-‘l’~v’LlCl”IIl6I1l tili’ devhosit. of the Com )ensa.t.ioi1 amotiiii.
‘ J _ es _ l I

» _V zkcoorcliiigly. this appeal is allowed in part. The

judgiii1ei’i1,’isVin’o–<:lii7i=ed. Amotmt: in deposit be i.i'e:i1sfe.ri*ed to the

Corn.misé;'on'ei* for Workmen Conipenszition. l33.ngaloi'e. EX(.'€SS

'dep,oSit'r 21115} made by the appell£~mi.. be i'efi.ii'1(led.

Sd/-5 i
JUDGE

V. mp,/~

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information