IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD DATED THIS THE 1o'1'H DAY OF SEPTEMBER,' Edtjé E. BEFORE THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE 'a'\'.Sé"S.(j5PisflNA:f' ' MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APEEM, NE; -3689/2b'0.$(wc}.V3 MISCELLANEOUS FIR'.§_'+I_';;_%EA_I'}vCI€«Q,.vv§~473IZCIOEIWC) IN MFA N0.3689/ZOOVEHWCI ' H BETWEEN: 1.sR1.cHA1tJDRA'sH;E_1<A:42 _ _ @ SHEKAPPA BASAPPA cHT1.L1<ANE1, AGE 49 YEARS, " " OCC:COOLI.'__ - 2, VMAHAtaEvi.cH1LA1<,AND1, 'w./0 cHAfiDRASHEKAE," '~.AGE~.43 YEARS',-.._ OCC: E_H0tJ'~SEH0LD. WORK, " C' BOTHCIA RESIIEEENT OF SAPPADALA, TALUK: SAUNDATTI, _I_fl_jD4IS"IjRICT: BELCIAUM. APPELLANTS (]'3'*I?_'SInV2I'I.C"H,M.DHARIGOND, ADV.) ,.p '0 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER. ....APPELLANT (BY SR1. RAVINDRA RMANE, ADV.) AND: I. SRLDUNDAPPA UDDAPPA KOWJALAGI, « ._ AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, A OCC:COOLIE(PRESENT NIL) R/O MCHANDARAGI, RAMADURGA TALUK, BELGAUM DISTRICT. 2. SRLNINGAPPA MAHADEVAPPA DANNANAVfARA_, MAJORIN AGE, A 12- " R/O K.CHANDA:RAG_I,*_-. ' " RAMADU»RGA'TAI:I.UK,1"§." BELGAUM D'lSTRICT',-. ' OWNER OF TRUCKNQ; . KA-22/A--8O89.,_% . ...RESPONDENTS (BY. SR1.HEM.vDHARIC}GN]:),__AvDV.FOR R1 " R-»2; "NOTI'CE""IS_ DISPENSED WITH) 'VIV'H'I$' NiE.A" EEIIQED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAISNTVTHEQNJDGMENT DATED 29 /05/2007 PASSED IN ""wCA/SRA..__I72;2OoV6 ON THE FELE OP THE LABOUR OFFICER AND 'a._COMMISSIONER ROR WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB- if)iV"Ii'~ION--2,vvI_.BELGAUM, AWARDING A COMPENSATION OF : '~~.R'S.,.:i*,O6';4 .12 /- WITH INTEREST @ 12% PA. -- "'TI}IESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, 7"TI--IEC_OURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I ,4» '0 JUDGMENT
IN MFA. NO. 3689/2008 (WC}
The claimant~appellant is seeking enhancement:
compensation as against the sum awarded in WCA.”-SR
The claimants are the parents of the deceased .. &The_.decetased.:’was
working as a cleaner in the vehicle.
2. The only question that ariises’ for consideration in the
present appeal is with regard {to eerihancement of the
compensation as against the C0II1II1iSSi0f1€1″-
The CommissionerflVii:as..V_awarde’d..___a. of Rs.3,34,065/-. While
considering theaincomei theijcieceased, the Commissioner has
adverted this the matter while deciding issue Nos. 3, 4
contention claimants with regard to the income
of the deceased..ha.s.heen noticed by the Commissioner. However,
in the absence ‘documents, the Tribunal has taken the income at
” iIV{s,_V1’0(A)/- perday and thereafter has calculated the compensation.
Tho’ugh_._i_n’ a normal circumstance the Commissioner would be
“rV§’t1sVtifie§cl in reckoning the said income, in the instant case, it is
J
,9
IV
noticed that the accident had occurred on 29/ 07/ 2006 and during
the said period even in respect of coolies this court was reckoning
a sum of Rs.100/–. However, in the instant case
claimant was Working as a cleaner it would bc:”ap~;irop’1″iate to
reckon the daily wage Rs.110/–. if that i:_p’s*d:on’e,_i the
income would be a sum of Rs.3,300/+.._V If sic-9./ulofp the:”sald.V_amiount
is reckoned for the purpose of calculation corhpuensativon and if
the relevant factor as noticed isiapplied, the
total compensation would he –. Since the
Commissioner aw-ardeldi / –, the claimants
would be entitled toipthe.eiihan.ced.._compensation of Rs.33,406/ –.
3. Insofaraias interest it is noticed that the
Commissiogneruhasxawarded interest on the compensation from 30
agf award. Since in the instant case, the claim
was i11″1r’e’speC’t’ the interest payable is from 30 days after
date of ac._c’iden’t and to the said extent also the award calls for
it ” ‘modification. “Hence, the respondent insurance Company shall pay
i”._:’*the_enhanc’ed compensation of Rs.33,406/– and while calculating
interest, the interest for the entire amount including the
i
an
4
amount awarded by the Commissioner as well as the enhanced
portion shall be calculated from 30 days after the4″:date:i’.-def *
accident and the amount shall be depositedpwithinieof ii
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of ‘ord’er§”
the entire amount shall be disburse’Cl.v.t0..the c1-fii1rI:9_1’1lt},, ‘
IN MFA. NO. 9473/2oo7(wc}A._y_’_”tfpi.
The Insurance.Co.rnpa.:nyi:’i’$?call*ingV__in iguestion the award
passed by the 2006 by the award
dtd. 29/ has awarded the
compensatiofl bi The contention of the Insurance
Company while”‘a4ssa.iling compensation in that manner
iysvythat disability.éygyivireciizoned by the Commissioner is wholly
u’njustifi_ed. contended that the nature of the injuries and also
as stated._yby”the__D.oc’tor in his cross–examination, the injury can
only be iterrned a temporary disablement. The Commissioner
‘v¥;~g”as_”‘ not justified in awarding compensation by taking the
percentages of the disability as done. It is further contended that in
it any.»event even a lesser percenktgge of the disability would arise in
J”
‘I
the instant case. It is therefore contended that the award is ___£iab£e
to be set aside.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent
that the Commissioner has noticed the efiidience of the jiboctorrand-V’
aiso the documents rekating to the treatrrienit-._of
that regard after appreciating the evidence, the.__Co.rnrnis’sio’neri has it
arrived at the finding of the fact,-rega’rdi’ng the ‘percentage of
disabiiity and therefore no question. fiaivv ‘for consideration
in this appeai. It is th_e1’e__fore:’eontend.ed:;that3theiiaward passed by
the Cornrnissioney. interference.
3. In iight contended by the learned
counsei for theiiipartiesi, of the award passed by the
iind._icate that, with regard to the grant of
cor’ripenVsation_Vkeeping in View the nature of injuries has been
consideredrrby vttaepiciorrlmissioner while adverting to his decision on
fflpoints No.iii3u, Whiie taking note of the injuries suffered by
; ‘claimant, the Commissioner has referred to the evidence of Dr.
‘;’_?ati1, who was examined before the Commissioner. In the
J) E
r.,
overall view of the matter and noticing that the claimantqvvas
working as a hamal, it would be appropriate to reci«;onii”thevVA
disability at 20% in the facts and circumstances involvied ~
case. if the disability is reckoned at 20% and the comp’e:n;satior1i.Visvs-_
recalculated adopting the other parameters ‘regard
wages and the relevant factor. The’clairnanti’xvould to
the compensation of Rs. 70,74y_l/– as the’ awarded
by the Commissioner. To the “Ehe’:ag;gard is modified
holding that the claimant is entitled to_reduc_evd:”.?;’0ii’npensation of
Rs.70,741/– with “‘hy’LtheVCdmmissioner. The
reduced compensation”yywiih j-shall be disbursed to the
claimant and ‘any, shall be refunded to the
insurance Company. _ ”
..te1′–mVslofrthe above, the appeals stand disposed of with
,no order” asto costs..
Sd/ –
JUDGE
‘=._1mn~..%