IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKAH: A. CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD " " DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY oES»AUGU1ST;<A2A;mA)" A EEFOREA _ % TI-IE HON'BLE MR. JUSSTTCE A..S'."-BOP.A1u*fl}IA' ' jg A" MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEATQ'N1gV.67iS--/290%? (we) BETWEEN: Sri. Sidram : H _ - S/0. Sidd1ingappa4D11.1a @ Dhula " . " » Aged about 36:' yeairs; _ Occ: C0o1ie..(NoW..Ni1)'1~1::;, ~ A R/0. Badeg,V1iv\ir1-e.r.' is contended that both are on the tower side to be enhanced. . 4. The learned Counse1*fo'r._vthebrespondentvhyowtzver
sought to justify the award passediiibygthe Co’IIi«-rnissioftier.
5. Firstly with r’e1§2;~,td–i_ disabflity, the
Commissioner .c_o’nysi’d.e”r’ed this aspect while answering
point No. which for its consideration. in
this regard, the’-wioundi’ certificate which was marked as
been noticed and in that background, after
reiferri’1_1g “to-«..thei’g’-evidence tendered by Sri.S. R. Angadi,
_Orthoipedi.r_;°Suii’geon who had stated the disability to the limb
it ‘at.”3..5%, the “Commissioner has arrived at the conclusion that
_’ 1~;eepi’ng’in View the nature of the injuries and the avocation,
.:i_’t’i1»e”lioss of earning capacity is to be reckoned at 50%. On
f
that aspect of the matter, I see no error committed by the
Commissioner.
6. With reference to the wages, the Commis;si’oin,er__:’iia___si
considered this aspect of the matter while point’ i
No.4 raised for its consideration, :.T,hjef
contended that he was earnineg.,__a su’mvii’of
month. However, in the absence_ of i’an:y”‘isatisfactory
evidence, the Commission.ery«–has: ta.1<:e"ri..,in,to«consideration the
minimum wages notificati.Oir._1i–.,date:d and has
reckoned', atgi"-Rs.2_O6S/–. In the normal
circumstances, in the"«a'bse'ncei.of documentary evidence, the
Commigssioner wouilidiibe justified in relying on the minimum
in'..wagesiiiiiiotiification. However, having placed reliance on the
no'tific'atio'n,'theVi.Commissi0ner has not thereafter considered
V as to i"Whe.th'er<"the very same wages are to be reckoned for
specific reason or any other wage is admissible. As
_i_n,oti_ced~,' in the instant case the notification is of the year
2002 and even though the wages could be fixed for a period
Eu.
2
SE”,
capacity; ‘ ”
5
of time under such notification, the accident being after
about 3 years on 29.10.2005, there would be increase in
wages even though there would have been no revision
minimum wages notification.
7. Therefore, keeping all these aspects inkzie Valjsog
noticing that in the year 2005, Rs.l’00/Qfipierliday
reckoned, the monthly wages is’lt_ai{.en at”‘Rs.3,00v0/§:_i””{fV60%
of the same is reckoned for the of hcalmilatilon and
the very same relevant jfactoftli. adopted by the
Commissioner ‘la.-;?opted,’etheclaimant would be entitled to
the sum of ..Rs.1,lT0,l604,l;”‘«–.to\vards 50% loss of earning
l_thle~–.Commissioner has already awarded a
suni.of»lRls.l;1l?;’432/-, the claimant would be entitled to the
;u..t_._4dliffVerence~.arnoiint of Rs.53,172/~ by way of enhancement.
amount, the claimant would be entitled to the
l’v~..s___interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of
5
6
award and at 12% thereafter. The enhanced amount with
interest shall be deposited by the insurance Company within
a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of.__this
order. On deposit, the entire amount shall be disba;ir’se”d,j:t’o<
the claimant.
In terms of the above, the app’eai:.st«a:1’d~s.’
No order as to costs. The 1″€giSt.Ij’.”tO reinvi1:”‘the tojgthe
office of the Commissioner.
€31′
is§i:§.f ”
gabl-