--AGED.I&Ifi:JQR,
R/'-'3.PU'§2ANAHAL.Li,
IN THE HIGH $0012"? 0? KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF' SEPFEMBER 2088 _
BEFORE V '
THE HUMBLE MR.JUS'I'ICE K RAMANN?;.." ' '
mm NO. 11142/zoofj (we) , ~ -- jj}_
arrrwmsznz ' * 1'
LSANJAY DPEONEBIBA SHINDE,
AGED ABOUT 25 YRS,
OCCCLEANER (NOW ML),
R/'O.SHIVAdINAGAR,
MALABHAG,
NEPPANI, 'I'Q.CHIKO{)I, _ _ ; . _
DESTBELGAUM " APPELLANT
(BY QR: SAN§1AY;fS~.,:}{'ATA{§'§E'Ri,' ADV)
AND: 1' ' ' V "
1 .BHUPI1~aB2:Rs11x£'c;H_ GFJMMAN;
'@1319. 1%: RAMA 'E3iES¥"3I__'AND,
TQLfB'H1I_JN.pEi,' - "
THAN)' Di7S'I".. "
' V ' ' V . , V MAHARASHTRA L...L'I'D.,
'M_ARb"i"§-QALLI, BELGAUM - 590 002. .. RESPONDENTS
. (‘B§ SR1 SSHRISHAILA, ADV FOR R-2}
*’§:E£iir=Hzti
THIS MFA U/3.30m :9 W.C.AC’I’ AGAINST ‘1’;~:-E
AND ORDER m*.22.7.2005 PASSED IN KAPAKA:sR-147;V20r§z;w.or¢
FILE OF’ THE LABOUR OFFICER AND CO1§»i’iVEiSSfONEiR”.FOi?”»
WORKMENS C’OMPENSA’I’iON, SUB4i)i”°J1SIC.N-1., _ BELGfxU?é§,
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR »..,CC§*ME?E’NSATI€31’J___ £393
SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATIOESI. ” ‘- _ . V’ _
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN’i-iEAR§3′- AND FOR”?
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT’ OF’ ‘J1?-EDGEEEBFT THIS
DAY,’1’HE COURT DELIVERED THE FOL£iQ”I,ING; ‘
The this appeai being
not satisfied #2?-O”7V–2O05 passed by the
Labour Ofi§(:er~ ‘ fi:$fV’vWorkmen’s Commission,
sub-divisicfi-_I, ” A; 3.12. NO. 147/ 2004, seeking
enchancementhf
‘V Heard {fie-Vagguments of both sides and perused the
ra.cord.’« .,
short P0i’a.t izzwolveé in this appeai is,
VVi.’}_1ether”~.. the’ -W’.C.Gomm1’ssioner is justified in awarding
” §£,4A and taking his monthly income at Rs.2,006/- ?
K u “5=¥. It is an undisputed fact that the appellant was
as clearer under respondent No. 2 in vehicle No. MI-f~()4
F36 4833, fIt)I}:}. 4 months prior to the date of accidmitf on
14.12.2904 While the appellant was on €:1:ap1oyme1’3t,:”due:to
and mtgligezit driving of the driver of i
met with an accident and the appe.ua:i[_i ‘”.é.u§i;xii:1cii
injuiics like fractures to right and left oft’
treatment and followup ttv;«fg1t1nent,V__Hfiiactu2f§:s ‘:1o_t right
femur was bending and that then: is a
ma} union of tibia and f}1t3rt?f01’t2.::’3l(§”5§f£3$ sit, stand and
squat, lift and to iiio thinzre is Iesuiction in
both the the appcliant am non
scheduk: V .2 who examined appciiant had
assessed disabflity to the extent of, right leg
,–‘-‘v4_rV5%, ;_ « course, Commissioner has taken the
fogs of oajiiacitgr at 70%. The Commissioner ought to have
V takco iosss capacity to the extent of 1 /3111 of disability
but the W.C. Commissioner has wrongly taken
of capacity at ‘7{}% which is on the higher side.
Comifiissioner ought to have taken loss of ezazziiiig capacity to
Vi liiiiéz-1::-titcnt of”-1/3″ of éisability of partrioular limbs, as such the
nltiés of earning Capacity as taken by the appellant/claimant at
r
» \..»*
2
70°/0 is on the higher side, no acceptable reasqtts
assigned by the ‘$33.0. Commissioner ”
takm g the loss of eamm’ g capacity aV¥t._ :’HtiaveV*ei’, the
respondent] insurer has not filedrény. apfteal’ .Vthe3 ortiert L’
under chaiienge, nor filed any regard, I
Won’t interfere with the ‘ t n A V
5. As regatjds the claimant is
concerned, the =i material before
the ifieome, therefore the
{3ommissiQiiej¥’ ‘V as provided under the
Minimum ‘tti’:_’ja$sees»:’jt£zehcompeneation payable to the
appellant/_’ c}.ait11′:::1it; ‘as; eneh’ do not find any illegaiity or
it; incoxae of the appeiiant/claimant at
§’3.2L.bG5_/7- tneixth. Therefore viewed from any angle, I do not
V find. to enhance the compensation awarded by
the W. C. Crgfiisgaissioner.
V’ ” 6;-._Acee1tiing1y, the appeal is dismisseé.
Sdf-=
Iudge
*Mvs