I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2009; BEFORE THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE C R "A A ' A MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AF'PEAL Ng)."i'o2«74 _;2'dO6 BETWEEN: Shivamurthy N aika Aged about 31 years S / 0 Naga Naika Bevinahaili Tanda Chitradurga District. - _ f ' __ [By Sri: N. Vii1ay:a_- Kee'2f'thiy,* 'Aci'vQea'te)__...§ 1 H.M. Harshavsfo HM,'Marulasiddappa (Owner of L0_1"ry_ NOQKA-EH16/B-A5999] A H§¢U.V§.5C'0}.'i1p1eX, Hiifliyar Road __ » Hosadvurgar _ ' Chit1"3,d1ir'g"ar~District. The Brvarrelfiiiiwlanager A A if * Cliitradurga. A The New India Assurance .ACS0rnpa1*1y Ltd., Branch Office - -A RESPONDENTS
(By Sri: N. Rajashekar, Advocate for R~1
K. Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate for R-2)
Q/’
This MFA is filed under Section 30(1) of WC Act against
the Judgment and Order dated 1/8/2005 passedp in
LCB:KPK:CR 98/05 on the file of the Labour Officer-V._&
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Daova.nagerc.,
partly allowing the claim petition for compensation &_’see~kir;g
enhancement of compensation.
This MFA coming on for Further
Court made the foHoWi1’1g:~ ” ‘ ”
We
This Miscellaneous First is»r_fiIed”‘u’nder Section
30(1) of the Workmen’s the Order
dated 01.08.2005_pa:ss-ed 9/8/2005 on the file
of the Labour! “OCffi.ce1″3’–._’and;pf._vpCornIrii.§.;.sioner for Workmen’s
Compensation; ‘DVa{raiEiagere”,=.___ai}owing the claim petition for
compensation seekingdte-nthancement of compensation.
‘ 2.” ‘~.thiS matter is listed for hearing on
.7″,___{interlocutory.’pappiication, with the consent of both side
counsel, it ~~i.s:taken up for fina} disposal and heard on merits.
rnateirial piaced before this Court is sufficient to dispose
‘ tlheppinatter at this stage.
gr’
3. Parties will be referred with reference to the status
in the Court of Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation.
4. The contentions of the c1aimant__.§’_:befofrje:
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation are’v~as*1~«_mde-::
The claimant was working ‘~r.i11d’e:r~..t}1e
employment of respondent lorry’
bearing registration No.KA;–.1V.6/ Gn 0l;O2′.2(lO5 under
the instruction of respondenVt.i.l\io’.C’1;’E’the…claimant and the lorry
Cleaner ‘7’fvVVShiVai1na driver by name
Chandrashekar-aiahVgwerell’bringing coconuts in the said lorry
from Hosadurgato lvi.urnbaVif: After unloading the coconuts in
lorry Wasldretuming back to Hosadurga. On
lorry came near National High Way
:x°Ji\To.4, Harih_ar,,uneAar Check post at about I 1.00 p.m., the lorry ‘
W””1″wa.s’driVen’i1’i a rash and negligent manner and with excessive
s_p.e’e’d”‘a–1id that time, another lorry came from opposite
it from Davangere and both the lorries colluded. As a
E/:
result of which, the claimant sustained bleeding injn”r’ies to
his right eye and other parts of the body. He
wage at Rs.100/– per day and bata at [Hey
was aged about 30 years.
5. Respondent No.2 –Insn__ranc’e lVComp:anjy…hVas3 filedt’
objections statement in the of Coniniissiioner for
Workrnenis Compensation denying ayernients made in the
claim petition. Theliabiltity'”oft:thisfreslpondlent is subject to
the terms and H .
6. of the findings of the
Corrincaissioner for vm~;::1:eri.*.si Compensation are as under:
The ‘CoInniissior1’er for Workmen’s Compensation relying
the and 2 and also the documentary
evidence the conclusion that the claimant has
got loss of-._”earning capacity to an extent of 40% as per
{Part I Item No.25 i.e., loss of one eye, the other
being. Cnorinal. The Commissioner for Workmen’s
U
Compensation has assessed the income of the claimant at
Rs.2,400/~» and an amount equal to 60% of the.”‘IllOlIt.hly
wages was taken into consideration for
awarding compensation and this arnount is the’
relevant factor 207.98 since the age oil: the
years and taking loss of ear13.ing_% capa..city_CVa7t has”
awarded compensation of,» {14a40″~x~’}207.98 X
40/100). The Commissioner”for,;Worl§:1nen’s.__ Compensation
has awarded inter’e:st–_~_ compensation
amount from one 1non’t”n__from-. the Vdatve of accident.
‘7. Aggrievedllmlfél finding of the Commissioner
for ‘Com’pe1_’;_$aaftion. the appellant – claimant has
preferred.tV .,§his«..své:”‘appeal seeking for enhancement of
* AA compensation.’ 1
The substantial questions of law that have been
in -this appeal are:
“1. Whether the Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation erred in passing
,2/’
the award contrary to Section 4 of t1ie”»o.
Workmen’s Compensation Act’? ‘ it 4’
2. Whether the Commissiovnierv
Workmerfs CompensatioiriWVerr’eri7.in’ S A
the salary of the appe11an_t”~.as
‘FVI
instead of Rs.3,000/?-{per month
Rs.20/– per day? ‘
3. Whether~ if.’-.1cts and
circurnstaneesg the
Cornrn{ists’i;:)r1er.vis§ justified’ ” “iri passing a
meagre_.–eonipensa’tio’n’?’,7r
9. the appellant submits that
the Wage of the-«.e1airriant’–._as~s’essed by the Commissioner for
Cioxnpensatitorris on the lower side. The claimant
was eooiie in a lorry and he was earning Rs. 100/-
day Rs.20/– per day. Therefore, he seeks to
.. _f’_fenha,nce the same.
_ Learned Counsel for the respondents supports the
judgment. He further submits that the interest
0
may be waived off for the period from 02.10.2005 to
28.09.2006. In this regard, he has also filed a memo,
11. I have carefully examined. p_thetl-wed
Commissioner for Workmens Comp:e’r1slation”‘
material placed before this Court.” the thew?’
claimant has stated that he wasp..iirorkin.,g as and he
had been to Mumbai to and while
returning from Mumpai? and lost one
right eye. ::o11.V_0’~’4l.02.2005 at about
11.00 all these aspects and also
material placed..loI;.Vreco’rd., View, the Commissioner for
assessing the income of the
at — is on the lower side. In my view, the
wagelofflthle has to be assessed at Rs.3,000/– per
pflmonth instead of Rs.2,400/–. If the income of the claimant is
at3«:.000/– per month and amount the equal to 60% of
0′ “.fp’the’mohthly Wages is taken into consideration for the purpose
liffiloft}-Lwarding compensation and it is multiplied by relevant
9/
8
factor 207.98 and. assessing the loss of earning capacity at
40%, the claimant is entitled for compens,atig:’:;’1._V_ of
Rs.’1,49,’745=60 and this amount is
Rs.l,49,746/–.
l2. Learned Counsel the 1\lo.2.0′
contended that the interest mayy..be”waiyAedhoffforyythe period
from 02.10.2005 to 28.09.0200e.’._’money paid to the
claimant by way of money, in my
view, the inteiesty ‘in; ‘V __from 02.10.2005 to
28.09.2000,’ has to”‘V’::’e..”because there was delay in
preferring the”‘ap”pea1’ .one:_”year. The compensation amount
/_””a.5VV’___av;’arded by the Commissioner for
W?Qr}{ll1Cn’Sv,COt11}§t:’I1SatiOI1 is enhanced to Rs. 1,49,746/–. The
:’u'<..n_V_enhance'd conlnqewnsation amount shall bear interest at 12%
one. month from the date of adjudication by the
Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation i.e., from
0. .0_’l”.’00y:2005. The claimant is not entitled for interest for the
l..pt}’1’iod from 02.10.2005 to 28.09.2006.
6/
13. In View of the above discussion, I pgis’si..’the
following:
a) This Miscellaneous First Appeaiiiéis if
b) The compensation amoun’c:_o’f…Rs. iaweirdeciiii
by the Commissioner for .Com,pg-glsation is
enhanced to Rs. ‘4 z
c] This compensaiion at 12% from
one aoindication and the
c1aiInant– interest for the period from
02.u12do5Loss@Xi2oo6.
” ….. Sd/..
JUDGE