mrx
-1-
IN THE HIGH comm' OF' KARNATAKA CIRCUi'?
AT BHARWAD
QATED THIS THE 19TH DAY CJF AU_Cr.USF,x 3 b
BEFORE
THE Howam MRS. .}z:s'r1CE Ai:3;V.NACiAR)£THN'AA.'''~ ''
M.1r.A.N{;L;§35/209'-:*._'_ T
nmwmn: V' V'
Sri.C}:1an€i:raka11th, 3/0 ' :
Baji Rag Patil, Aged 31Vv--"§::*. ; ,V = A
R/0 Maxaturga; aKhanz[1p"l1I'
Belgaum Diéfgn-i<;7t;' _ . " I
' '......APPELLANT
(By Adv...95r K.Govi.13.da1aj, Adv.)
3.. The l31wg_p1i.efi5£, °
Suptzcme I3i1d._11S1I'i£'S, "Datta
~ Building, V
MaJf'ad'01a"~Post,
1" ._ Supzeme
i1,_1¢iust.1icS,-- _€i/9, 85 C[10,
£1ifius"m'a1'Estatc, Bachc-Ii,
Khaxxapur Tq. ,
.. Bglgaiim District.
.... .. RESPONDENTS
.–f§(By Sri.Sachi11 S.Magdu1’n for V.S.Shasu’i, Adv.)
-2-
This MFA is fiied “under Section 173(1) of ti-16:’
against the Judgment and Awantl dated 24. I.20Gt§.;;3s._sssd in
i{aPaKa:SR/46/ 2004 on the 131: of the (3oz:411hissionere:fi3rt’v.
Workman Compensation, Sub–Division-II,.V’Be1ga’u1’n _psr’t1j,«:fu
allowing the ciaim petition for compensation” ‘sf11d”‘seekL*;g ‘
further enhancement of CO131})CBS£ti2i0I1. ‘ ‘
This MFA coming on for ADMISSICN “tt1e’
court delivered the fo11c;>wi.ngV.”_ _V
Junsssag
Though this matter actmission, with the
consent of learned it is heand and
dispflsed
2. Th.is é1p’_ties§:,_is claimant seeking
enhalisementtv by chailenghg the order
passed W6r}ei;’§es,s”‘_.{“,empcnsation Commissioner Sub-
I)ivj.sic>11+II, sesgam : in case No. KaPaI{a;SR/46/2004
‘I’1v1Ae’.V’v’e:i_;«s.sttisp’£1ted facts of the case are that the
who was worlcing as a machine operator
x V’ .. the Iespontient establishment on 29.8.2003 suffered
injuries to his arms during the course of employment.
“”Ctont<:J:zding that there was loss of earning capacity as a
/'X'_
Z /'
-4-
4. I have heard Sri.Sanjay Katageri for
?.
and Sr§.Sachin S. Magdum for Sxi.Vigne:%hWaifj <53:
behalf of the appellant and resp£mdent;sfivrE$p{c§¢fi~;fé}3?.:'-% :
5. It is submitted on of V’ti_1’e’
medical evidence onf givfin and
despite strong in favour of the
claimant/appfiflatnt, in taking the
percentage: of only 40% which is
to the appeflant was
such; disability in as much as the
appe1IAéu1_t”is hands for doing any kind of
Wqrk a.nd Vt1=.::Arefo1re, W. C. Commissioner ought tr; have
Aass”essed”*’t1;e earning capacity at IGCPA: instead of
Vihiéitfom, Iequests this court to enhance the
by taking the percentage of loss of earning
capagcigg at 109%.
Per contm, it is submitted on behalf of the
~ responde1::t/ employer that the two doctors who were
examined in the case were at consensus with regard to the
-5,
percentage of permancnt disability to “both the’:
tak:m’ g that into considerafion, the Comm :”‘sv$i{§I’§.?:i* Wa§»
jusfifiw in assessing the percentage .:§qf’ .g_}.:;A.m_ j
capacity at 40% and that the : ‘£”_:i;1c
Commissioner is just and which for
interference in this aypeal. ‘
‘7. Based on the élricfité only point that
has to be Q v as to whether the
percentage” ifiapacity arrived at by the
or it requims to be
modified?’
8. V’ _v I héifira evidence of Dr.Satish II}.Pat:il who
” A czjzzémixled of the appellant who is Working as
V Vfisgmgcon in K.L.E.Hospita1, Bcigaum. While
of the disability caused to the appellant, he
hag stétgd ‘that there is disability of 35% to the right hand
L iai1d._3(V§’% to the left hand. Dr.Di.I3esiJ, R.KaI:: who was
Z g-:;»’:§a’1An;i2:md on behalf of the mspondentf employer and who is
u “working as Oxthopacdic Surgeon at Bclgaum Orthopaedic
/9
,9
..7_
10. But in the instant case neither of the
deposed on thus quesfion of loss of earning’
further them is no evidenm as to;vet11cther’£Ifié ir¢_i;ii » _
a position to do any other WGf}§ org” iiitff
disabled. This aspect has -got ‘beef: *
W.C. Commissioner who on .a:2;$¢:s;se£ififl1e loss of
earning capacity to é1b$fenceAA<)VAf categoricai
medical evidenge on jfséipacity as Wei} as
the finding as' in a posititon to do
any otlxef fbf this court to make a
guesjsi iaifirk '1V(fl)ss of earning capacity and
in the absence of evidence with
mgaxjd t{V3'L'i}:1ev_V'a1fc:;i@s;.éi:§f'lV'2£Qpccts, I deem it proper to remand
n;att:::_r to thev='9J;C'Commissioner for flesh consideration
' fi1g 'a_sia§s3me3:1t loss of eaming capacity and as to
"=.x.*.1iéths§i" is capable of doing any other work to
hlivefihocxd by giving another opportunity to both
.. AASi{}.f;S lead additional evidence.
" __51}. Keeping in mind the above obsmcvations, I dinzct the
W.C.Commissi0ner to quanfiiy the compensation after the