1,.
1 mass. 6?§8..-="{)t':l
IN THE HIGH COURT or= KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23'" DAY 0:: MARCH 2oo9...fII« I
BEFORE H M I V I I
THE HONBLE MR'JUSTIC£:'H§B!'Li.AI?PAI«IIT' I
M.F.A'No(6758!200éI§3!}Jf;I_z I
BEFNEEN:
'E
sw NINGAMMA,
wso sawmaeowm,
MAJOR. I'
SRISANNEGGWDA;
s;o NARASlI\'IHEGGWE3A;'
MAJOR." -
B537" ¥*<TE3'.9EI'"i.T"5 .
MANce--:APfis1"NA'xIILLA«aE. I
HOSAKERE
NAGAMANGALA'TA.Li;%--K,'
MANDYA DISTRICT. -*
5 ' I I ..APPELLANTS
{a§?j'sRf}'~s K UEJMA BI-IANU, ADV.,)
" MANAGIVENG PARTNER,
M£$"CHOWGIRI MINERALS
" CORPORATION (R), S.Y.NO.-T? & so,
* . QGANGASAMUDRA VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK,
MANBYA DISTRICT.
THE MANAGER.
{VI/SORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD..
I/
'* E\.i?L»'§ é7S8.:'i}tJ'
3. Aggrieveci by that, the appeliants have fiV1e€!L i£7_is
appeai, seeking enhancement.
4. En briefthe facts are:-
That the son of the appeE|ants:'~:;iie:£'e§e'
occurfed on 84.11.2004 in the'TV_c«e_;;rse--"ef'V' empie'ye1en.t_,VVVV _}The
appeilants ciaimed compehsatior;"'«.ef The
Commissioner has awardeef'--;on§:pe§:s.et§e;:ief, Rs.2,21.37Gl- with
interest at 12% p.a._ Aggr§eve"¢iw..by; ih§at, "fhe'eVppe'IEents have feted
this appeal, seek}ré§:e§.aif:an:¢enie§fif.
""" ieeeeed ftmhe appeléents contended that
the Corfi'mise§onef 'iekihng the income of the deceased
' at R$.2.0Od?+«-pe:~.mVent!eAa:':d::_i§'1e Cemmissiener sheufid have taker:
V. «_ té':eV_§»s2-iqovtjrfe of the '<':i'e<:ee_eed at Rs.5,000f- per month: He 'therefore
»s§;Ve-m§ttecA_i'«the.t:"fhe impugned judgment and award needs to be
.n1o5'ifieé Q ' - ._ ' V ' 3
1A3 against this, the ieamed counsel for the first
--§eepe¥:der:t submitted that the deceased was werking as a loader
_'v_a§2d an-Eeader with the firs: respondent and the deceased was paid
Rs.80f~ per day.
We
4 3.*E?s’-\ t’37S8.=’C€§
7. The Iearned counse! for the second
submitted that the Commissioner has rightly taken_tti’e_::’in,oet3ie H
the deceased at Rs.2,000i~ per month ar:tdthea’eforte, it:vrtoes_eot
fog interference. He ei-so submittegi that.»et_’
wages may be taken. Further hettsuefieitteehtiwet tt1VeV»’ettietcéye:”t1as
stated that he was paying’ F?.s.80i-‘V.se:V-tea?”efid toeteforefthat can
betekee as the wages ofthe’ V’
8. 3 t3e%Je”j;erefui3%_y c-‘onside~te’d’:ti1e.sfibmissioes made by
the teamed ceyansjeijtoyr the R
-. ‘ arises for my consideration is,
whether t?:ée”~itjepaJVgried }”eego*:’e.ot end award caiis for interference?
” 1 .._it is reiev–eet’te note, the commissioner has awarded a
with éeterest at 12% per annum, The
etpoetttents parents of the deceased. They have deposed
that the Veeceesed was working as a loader and ura-loader with the
V’ t’g’st”t5eso’ondent and earning Rs.5,00€)f- per month. These is no
Atebttettai evidence. The first respondent who was the empioyer of
the deceased has stated that he was paying Rs.8iI3E- per stay, but,
he has not stepped inte the esitraess box, No evidence is adduced
l/
33 ;\=’1I9A 5?5E%f{}f>
on behaif ef éhe firs? respondent. No doubt, there ;i é.”-no
eocumerstary evidence. But, the appeisants have deposed’ 3
deceased was earning Rs.5,0€3{3!– per month. Thereks: n<jV'er.éVbue'tret
evidence. Therefore, the income of theI:ie¢ee$e'§j ce«ri b~e_taikeéi~ aitg
Rs.4,€3@O:'- per month. Aecordingiy, it 1sAEe}aé2eic»i fV»Van–d.:T{?§e’v_~Eefipugned judgment
and award fez’ Werkmerfs
compensatierg. i§h7′.%J\}’Lz2i.}%s..P§io:’.1V51f2{}04 stands modified
granting cofii%r5e5:.2sa:i§$;§ ef ej;.4.42%,%%4e:w instead of Rs.2,2’i,3’r’9I~
with intereiefat 12.3«_€$el;a.»e’:3:fi’:e:~”enhanced amount from one month
aftexj. the da{e ef ad}’udAi’ca{ié{n i.e.. from 23.93.2009. The interest
evirefdeiszin byjhe eemmiesioner on the amount awarded by him
‘i’e_::iein:$«..;.§Vraiiiet§J’tft>ed. The seconci iespondent shafi deposit the
eaneuntVWitf§i–§_: eight weeks from today,
Sd/-
JUDGE
din”
Hb