IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER; BEFORE " °""" THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B;SREENIV 4 E}'O4WDA'é Miscellaneous First Appeai Ne: .' BETWEEN : 1.
Smt.Jayamma,__ ‘
W/ 0. Late Sanrxegowda, _ A ._ _
Aged about 43 years} * j. ‘ ‘
2. Sri.Jaya.r 21rnu, E
S/0. Late
Agec1″ab@_1i’t-»~2*5 y’e_z;1.ts~;._ »
3. ksunam.1a;Eie;e E f [E
D)’ Q I_,atew.VSaI’1neg.QWc1″a.
Aged .. about . 2 }.’ye.eLi’s.
” ‘ _Hu»H11kar.e. Village,
A _ Kéthathi hobli,
” 1 Manldya –‘1’ q.
APPELLANTS
BL. , Advocate)
A N IJ_:7.:_
% Sri, Chikka Girigowda,
V’ S/0. Girigowda,
Major,
9%
R/ a Pehalli Village,
Kodiyala Post,
Mandya District.
2. The Branch Manager,
United insurance Co.Ltd.,
Opp. KPTCL.
M.C. Road,
Mandya. e 5
.A _ RI3'._SPoN.DENi'SV
{By Sri. M.V. Sreenivasan, Adyocatefor R. ' '
Sri.. L. Sreekanta Rao, Advocate for R2,}, C
as: V’
This MFA is filed U/sec: ,30_(njof’W.c. ACT against
the judgment dated 15…06;.20.0’Tf passed,’-in WCA./NFC/CR–
5/ 2007′ on the-fgiie of the Labour” ‘_Qffi’cer and Commissioner
for Workmeiis fCQ1npensation,.. Sub””Division~II, Mandya,
partly allciwinjg the clajLrr1″*-petiti_on.’for compensation and
seeking enhancement ~of’com’pen’sation.
This on for Admission, this day, the
Court, delivered following:
*JfiDGMENT
it ‘appeal dddd by the claimants challenging the
awardv-.of-Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation,
S1il3–I)iirision II, Mandya, for short herein after referred to
as,_.Co1’r1missi.oner, in so far as not awarding interest on the
~co1npensation amount from the date of claim petition.
%.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to as they are referred to
Commissioner.
3. The learned Courgsell'”appearinge_for’ Hthes’.
claimants fairly submits.,_ the’–.A:appeal..”.r, A’ preferred
challenging the award madelvbytthe Comfnitssionelr only in
so far as not aWa1’d_ii1g the “Aeornpensation
amount from the datefiof He further
submits, th_e3._’:int:erestv:has_ to .a\yar”d~ed at 7 1/2% p.a. from
the the date of award and 12%
p.a. frorathye date’:-l:0fllavr:a1’d” till the date of payment, as per
theLf;udgrr1er1t.Vof’the l~’lon’ble Supreme Court.
L.Sreekanta Rao, learned Counsel
the Insurance Co. does not dispute the said
C ‘ positio_r1’L.of law.
ffi
5. With regard to interest, matter is covered by
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in theyoase of
ORIENTAL INSURANCE co. LTD, Vs. MOH§3;~}lAS__I_R1’Ai~TD
ANOTHER reported in 2009 AIR sow 37.1.?t;’_exa;zhere1nit fig
held, interest has to be awarded at.-?f} the
date of ciaim petition til} t}ie..date”of”aware.d’V’%’and_V.V
from the date of award till of V}
6. In View of by the learned
Counsel fortihée oifiithe judgement of the
Apex critters} ORIENTAL INSURANCE
coyrn. — AND ANOTHER, interest
awarded is modified accordingly.
Accordingly, the appeai is allowed. The
V Jndgn’;ent;”and. award of the Commissioner is modified in
so “far _%ae, awarding of interest on the compensation
amount’; is concerned. Interest on the compensation
is awarded at the rate of 7 V20/0 p.a. from the date
%