IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA 1' I' ''
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED 'THIS THE 26"' DAY oF: AU'¢:3 ::._~*;=.?t*,T 2€)o.é- ' _
BEFORE
THE I-I01\¥'BLE MR. JUsTiC$'A.s. BOPATIfHA.'1~;'
M.F.A. 'a9o6']'i.?CC$;v}C3'. ''
BETWEEN:
SHRI BABU YALLAP .PA A_LA__G1.3':NDl,"' ., _
AGE. 44 YEARS, OjC_C: 1.{AMA_L1,__.« if;
R / 0. CHAL}':VEN'A'I'TI*,-. 905? A 5' A(}_ASAG-E,
TALUK 8:, %p1sTR'IC:'r_: BIa;LQAU--M__.
' ' ...APPELLANT
(BY SR}. HARISH.,S. MAI«(}:UR,.A"D3/QCATE}
AND: _ ' A "
'- RA;J'§xsH:E:2;AR. ?s;';'B1.RD1, s/0. SATTEPPA, MAJOR,
CCC. B'Us1_N~1=;ss, R/O. 1156/A GANESH PRASAD
GC):NIPLE§X,_'ANANTSHYAN GALLI, BELGAUM.
.2. '.I'I--I.I'§'3' 13I\v/'1E.'~}VIj-'QV1A'\E'ZSL MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA
AS'SUR_fifJCE£ CO., LTD., CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
RESPONDENTS
‘ (B;}”s.riC….A_:xsa. VENKATESH ADVOCATE FOR R2)
‘ (.12C’Es1r/Tr. NO. 1 –~ NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
.£
‘–
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U /S 30(1) OF we ACT AG’AIN*ST-«THE _
JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED O8/07/2005 ‘PASSED iI’Nj
WCA/SR–160/2004 ON THE FILE OF’ THE LABOUR’O’EEIvCE:RVAND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS JCOMREN=S_A-‘.TIO_N–,_._SUE–‘I
DIVISION–2, BELGAUM, ALLOWING THE. CLAIM L’ETITION.a”‘ROR.j
COMPENSATION AND SEEKING iEN}aIANCEV1-‘QIENT OF
COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMINGLON FORVffOR’D.ERS ‘THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE I«*OLL’O.wING:V’V ..
JUDGMEIIQ ft
The appellant/”C’1ai}nari=t court seeking
enhancement of the eo’;T1}i5.e’I1satio’n’ae. Va~gai_ns’t the sum awarded by
the Commissioner’ ‘Compensation by his award
dated 08/07/2eoS.II ‘I’he’i”f:Jo.1I:ii\niSsioner has awarded the total
Compensation of RS. 1’,6;_”V/’i,949if–.
I~~i¢’31i_1’1e§i..ieounsel for the appellant while seeking
i’a._ieVn’hanCeme_nt V__vo’f,:t’he Compensation would contend that the
i””C.O’Inn*IiSSionerv… has erred on two counts while deciding the
N-,i’eor12;aensati_on. It is contended that the Commissioner Ought to
reokoned the disability as stated by the Doctor at 90% and
d
.g–.-
In
was not justified in reckoning only 80%. With regard to wages, it
is contended that the Commissioner Was not justified in retjkoning
only a sum of Rs. 2,065/–. As such if these two-u”aspect.s’
considered the appellant would be entitled_to»h4igher
The learned counsel for respondent howeVer1’_i_soiight.to
award. it is contended that the evidence of the .Doevto’r_’ha.s been = L’
meticulously noticed by the Cnommissioneir and «reference to the
said evidence has noticed the”.tiin.Aci_ioIiali and thereafter
arrived at the disabilityaand as error whatsoever.
Even with regard. ijnolildocizmentary evidence
available to the statement made by the
claimant. Therefore document the Commissioner
was j’ustified” in looltingnilntol the Minimum Wages Notification in
respect. the same has been relied. Hence
the award «in..iitsvier:itir’ety does not call for interference nor the
“claimant is entitled’ to any enhancement.
i .1.nlA.i.–‘the light of what has been contended a perusal of the
fqirould indicate that thiissue relating to the wages has been
‘9
considered by the Commissioner while adverting to point No_._4_. In
this regard the evidence of the claimant has been noticed._’w.h’erein
he has contended that he was earning Rs. 120/~ .
month he was getting a sum of Rs. 3,600/~_._ TheiiC0nj;missionesr_
has also noticed the objection of the Ins7ura_nce” Cor_n’paiinyi,i
was putforth before him. Thereafter has
referred to a decision of this court on the
Minimum Wages Notification fixed was in a
sum of Rs. 2,065/– in respectgof. In the absence
of documents it trtlsijcfiatijtheiiiiioimhissioner would be
entitled to r’e_1yWages Notification. However,
while placing Wages Notification the
Cornrnissio§ne1’t..woii1d» l\\\’%LV§; to keep in View the date of the
:iiof._._the and also the area in which such
(3l’1′}pi(i”J’~\/.iI’1″}§;”£’}:’tiA”ié:”‘~1,t1’1dCl’TfiakC1″1. In the instant case, the Minimum
T’ Noti.ficati’o:1Viir~eilied is dtd. 12 /06 /2002 while the accident had
on” 08/2004 and as such there was more than two
p i”irearsii.baci{iA.i.–and there is likelihood of enhancement of wages during
fhesaid period. Further it is also to be noticed this court in
3
,.–e
at
respect of hamals has been taking more than Rs.100/
year 2004 and as such in the instant case it would
to reckon the daily wage at Rs. 1 10/-. If -th’at–.i.s diuoneio
income would be a sum of Rs. 3,300/-.
4. The next question that arises for’-considerationdis}with,2′
regard to disability as reckoned by Though the
learned counsel for appe11ant«.._i.1i’:i’a_s the Doctor had
stated 70% in respect Of the thereafter and
therefore in all of the evidence
tendered byilthe, indicate the details of the
injuries and V rendered. Though the
evidence inirespect of, injuries has been stated by two Doctors
the Commissioner has taken note of
the e’vjde’nce’V~iij~_.tihei”oackground of the avocation of the claimants
xihiand functionai’ .disability was ascertained. In this regard the
.._.f;g;jnisi’deration._.bf this aspect while deciding point No.5 would
“‘Vindicatc-._t_hat the Commissioner has adverted to this aspect in
J
an
9:
detail and therefore there is no error committed by the
Commissioner in so far as the disability reckoned.
5. In View of the wage as reckoned above if th.e..comp’ens.ation
is recaicuiated the 60% of the said amountcf
have to be reckoned for the purpose «of icomputatioini’ of titeil
compensation and the very same reIieyiar1.t factoriiasi-iiniciicated by
the Commissioner is to be notjiiced. Tlheipideriifative thereof would be
a sum of Rs. 3,35,491/– since I haveihviretairied’ thei__disabi1ity at 80%
as indicated by thei’«Cb’mrr3_issic-fiery. the said amount
amounting Rs.– 2i,iES’8,3.9i2,,/»–‘wou1d– have to be awarded. Since the
Commissioner already ,.aW_arded a sum of Rs. 1,67,949/~
appellantpgjivould be ..erititied to a difference of the amount as
‘i”>e_ said amount would be paid to the claimant
from 30 days after the date of the award
to be cavlcuiated from 08/08/2005, but the interest for 211
for thie;..de1ay in filing this appeal shall be excluded. The
am:oLiri’t..sha11 be deposited by the Insurance Company within a
if
-‘r
period of 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
On deposit the amount shali be disbursed to the ciaimant.
No order as to costs. ; ‘
hum