IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
DATED THIS THE 5"' DAY or P"E%2F§R€§--§ 2o1o_
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE BSREENIVASE..§O.WDA.._ O' I
MFA NO.8333/200752
BETWEEN ' A I
SriANAND
S/O DHARMU RAT}-{OD.__
AGE: 28 YEARS
R/O KANNUR-THANDA A A
TALUK AND DISTRICT""fiiJAPUR'»I'_
PIN-586101 " ...APPELLANT
(By Sri V.S,VKCj_)TEN1\'AVAR, UMESH V MAMADAPUR
8,; S"ri_BA33_IJ_GQUDA SIDIHEDPA, ADVs.,]
AND
1. Sri RU-PASINGH "
'gs/Q NARASINGPI BOMBAYWALE
.....
R/O’ KUMTA NAKA
STATE
A A 2. “£’I’-‘-{I3 DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
‘A s.S.ERoNT ROAD
j:E1JAPUR-586101 RESPONDENTS
[By Sri RVNADAGOUDA, ADV., FOR R2}
MFA FILED U/S 30(1} OF WGC. ACT AGAINST THE
ORDER DATED 30/3/07 PASSED IN WCA.NO.32/O5
ON THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION,
i/7?»,
2
SUB DIV1SION–2, BIJAPUR. PARTLY ALLOWING THE
CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
zwus MFA Cownmo ON FoR:aNAL HEARflw3h%fisD\
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:?u__u
JUDGMENTfwC
This appeal is by the clairiiant, seekinig’=.er;:ha’ncernent
of compensation awar’de..d Labour ‘Officer and
Commissioner for workmen’_Compensa*ti.’o.n_,’_~_.Sub-Division-
II, Bijapur.
2, OOOO convenience, the parties are
referred to as the’yOfa_re’.._:refe..r’red to in the ciaim petition
befo re. the Co”m_:mis.s’i o r.’ ‘O
‘3rief_j.facts of the case: —
when the ciaimant was working as a
C°”‘*–__V”‘cooiie Oirfla Tempo bearing No.MA-13/R-5019 beionging to
A respondent, the tempo met with an accident and
sustained injuries. Hence, he fiied a ciairn petition on
if 22.2.2005 seeking compensation before the Labour Officer
and Commissioner for workmen Compensation, Sub~
K. .-=-.’ .
¢;’*=*’_., 4,
3
Division-II, Bijapur, hereinafter referred to as
‘Commissioner’ for short.
4. The Commissioner after consideration of ”
and documentary evidence on record,. has _.a_WVa4ifded_j’y.aVi’~..
compensation of Rs.69,273/– Vwith»u’inte_re’st ffa’t.yAyA’;&,Ly0/9
from 10.1.2006.
5. As there is facts that
the ciaimant is. of Section
2(1)(n) of Act, hereinafter
referredftov’asfviiitvctiifaiidif’he’-Vsust’a’ine%d injury in an accident
occurrediin’ the of empioyment while he
was wo_rkind’~as”a. §QOA3Ai’-3S iifthe tempo beionging to the first
‘-respoffndzeint and infsured with the second respondent.
” _ only substantiai question of iaw that arises
“-for consideration is:
“Whether the compensation of Rs.69,273/– as
awarded by the Tribunal by assessing his income at
Rs.2,200/-i per month is just and reasonable and
does it call for interferences?”
4
7. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant
submits the claimant by working as a coolie in the tempo
belonging to the first respondent was earning wa’g..é_’s_:’of
Rs.fl50/– plus bata of Rs.40/~ per day. After’it-sus’ta.ii,ji’1i.nfg_.Q”.
injury, he is not in a position to c_o.nt,i_nue_-hi’s”*co’ol’i’e. worlg
and the Tribunal is not justified in’»A.,as{;essinig.,h’i.s”‘wa’g:e.$
Rs.2,200/– per month andggawalrdilng co’r’nVp.e_nsa’_t;io.n.
Therefore, he prays for allowinlégathexappealiby enhancing
the compensation. . A H
8. _Pé’,r .lel3_rVned:_4’c.oun’sel~’: appearing for the
Insurance’Cornparl?y””su’brri-its, the– Commissioner has rightly
assessed the claimant at Rs.2,200/~ per
month and. there “no scope for enhancement of
com;pen..sat.ion and-h.–e~’prays for dismissal of the appeal.
is not in dispute that the claimant was
worl<i'ng':.as coolie in the Tempo belonging to the first
respondent and he has sustained multiple fractures in the
accident occurred in the course of and out of his
employment. The Doctor, who treated him, has stated
that he has sustained disability of 25% to the whole body.
The Claimant is aged about 29 years at the time of
xii'/'
E'-su_
3 '(
S
accident and relevant factor applicable is 209.92 as has
been held by the Commissioner. The accident is of_.._the
year 2604. Even if we disbelieve the statement
claimant that he was earning wages of Rs.150/-5: '
Rs.40/– per day as claimed by hi:i*-.-1;" ..5a_ge~i.r,,
and year of accident and nature of aocctupationias–.C0.o|*;gé~t,§n"l~:
a tempo, it is jut and iorolpertto take.'hyiAs:~._:iricVor'r*ie": at
Rs.3,00G/– per month; that"isjso;-»s__the' covmpensation
works out to Rs.94,4e4f? as against
Rs.69,273/– ayi:a'rded and E award
the same ansyiiered accordingly.
awarding of interest in
Workmen Cto’mpensvatio_n ‘case, the matter is covered by the
V-.0.f ——– –~Court in the case of SHRI
iismo omens v. THE DIVISIIONAL
M’A.i§llVAGEERyi:’3..V_Pri::/s NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY
GULBARGA reported in ILR 2009 KAR
According to the said decision, the interest has to
awarded at 12% pa from one month after the date of
accident till the date of realisation.
fox
§’*§*:’:£
6
11. Accordingly, appeai is aliowed. The
Judgment and Award of the Commissioner is modified,.-The
ciaimant is entitied for the compensation of Rs.94.,’f§i*E$V4;’-.§”L:’a:s-.4
against Rs.69,273/– awarded by the Tribunai M
at 12% ;).a. from one month after the ‘datée”..of V
the date of realisation.