High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri P R Mohan vs Sri Salvinder Singh B Singh on 7 June, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Sri P R Mohan vs Sri Salvinder Singh B Singh on 7 June, 2011
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
2. Sri Saivinder Singh S Smgh,

Owner ef Larry bearing
No,MHO4~The-24S8,

R/at No.8/10/1044,  _
Sec.3, CBD, 7 "

Navi Mumbai -999999.   

(R1 Served but unrepresented}-.V..

This MFA is filed uhd€_ffSe_ct§.Qh 3€){«1) ,r'£'
rei'ii-g..V'":Qh"'-;fo»r' orders this day, the Court d_e_§iverae'd *ii_hveVf:w_[_i'c>~,{\i'i--ng:____V ..S;'i Sheiaiiféiader B.Singh, the empfoyer, is not a he'::ess§.'a'r:y"eparty Sihee there is coverage of insurance and Vihehre with regard to Iiabfiity ef Insurance Co.h§pa.r-:y:h'fieATV§eposit the cempehsatioh arheuht. Learned Acouhfseeihtfer the appeikaht in MFA 52??)/2009 filed a meme :0, fieéete the sairi respehdem; The gjrayer 5:': memo was ___eé§ewe<:¥ am the reseehdeet m awe 52m/eeee wee eeieiee. Eh the eéreeresiaeeesg Esseaeee es' e*:%s::e to ,,.»v' 4 respendent 2 in MFA 3364/2009 being unnecessa'ryf;\:"§r?;L3nVé£.$ dispensed with. 2. With the consent of iearn-ed tc:0u'tnse!.§ti:§&$:hy; respondent before

the 1.’:o:i~:~.i’fi’.”t/§\:”V”c>r.l{rne’n’s’VCompensation. For
conve’tn’ienCe§;V:y be referred to with
reference to eréginat proceeding,

__4. LA» ;3et§t–ion*V_ Wes flied seeking compensation

cenfend.AingthatV,”‘t*:1*e’petitioner was a cieaner in a Eorry

vv.}hi’ch:”be£e4rrg:ec.{ to Saiavinder Séngh Bsingh, which vehicle

beenV’r:’?.§_n§ured by the Insurance Company. It was

statecfhthat, the vehécie met with an accident an

A 3¢’;’i”QE2«Q0fi en Puneegangatere road and the petitioner

giueteined eersoneé Enjerées m.:h§ch ereee eat <3? the accident

and in the eeurse ef erneieyrnentg E: wee stated that the

iegzrries eeeteéned ere eerrnenent ini netere ene hag

E
2/

»»

affected his earning capacity. The dam v§;a_sV_"'e.entTe:'st4ed"t:2':i._V

the Insurance Company. The1;.ewrie':,!ir2su'ired_':'restrrai';f:e&3

absent and was placed exa.parte"–.bS:-..the

Issues were raised. Petitid'h.e:r»depo'sed'*e.:s PW.Vi. He

examined Dr.M.S.Rarffie.s_h, surQe'or1 as PW.2.
The application flied to lead
rebuttal devoid ef merit,
was rejected}.4¢e:€'eéde:;:;.:mTg~.{fie :r§yaVI'cdntentions and after
appreei'a'tidr§A:"et recerd, the Commissioner has
ailowed part and has directed to
deposit 4Rs.1,Q1,659/– with interest at

12.’2:s.,:V_rf:_t_is not deposited within 30 days from

__ » davte.%efij’–L:dgment. Aggrieved; beth parties have filed
‘ ‘these VVa;7;:>eai»s_.

S,:dLe’areed ee:mse§ fer the petétiener edntended that,

the’ Cafnméssiener has erred in not awarding interest with

“.efi’eet frem 3Qt1§2€3@1 %.e., 38 days after the date of

” ‘-“amides: since the ctemperzsetierz areeerzt was eeéther eaid

eer deeeeéted theugta the same feéé dzge ee the date er?

s?

X3

t V/¢,..m.

accident and the Corhmissieher ought_Vte.”‘haii.e eirected

deposit of the c0m¥’p~ehsatAitdh’*’:.aj;htiu_ht vtith “Ehterest in
exercise of jurisdictioh the Workmen’s
C0mpensetée,n’et:Vt. w2:§:t,;~:tVac%;§:a%on the tiecésioh in
the case? Cefrsriees vs. DIVISIONAL
MANgee’R,[:’:;f§ifs::§r;sE»t’–1.V,’six:e’IA”‘-‘ASSURANCE C06 LTD”,

GULBARGA 4 Iété:-VE'(§VG>§V’:VK}%’fiV..~1422t

Lear-nedvheetinset for the Insurance Company on

mfé et2?3L:€F:VAh~ahd cohhtended that, the physical disability and

:thseV ef-..–:”earning capacity as assessed by the

CG-mm,§_ssé0her is not based on any Credible evédence and in

the Cir-eumstahees, the award is excesséve. Learned

té’-..Vé:e.u..h’se§ submits that, the awarding 01′ interest by the

V. .,_..fiemmiss§oner is in eonsonance with the decision in the

ease Of NATIONAL INSURANCE CQMPANY LTD” VS.

MUBASHEER AHAMED AND OTHERS {Z007 AC3 845 (SQ).

2?, I have pemsed the reeerci The cgeestiehs

E
swf

reeeiree te he fietermiréee ere:

8

25%. In my opinion, the Commissiener

excess percentage of enysicai disabiiity_a_n’iEi~–..:ne.:”iessi’

earning capacity, In view of thenai;ut*e’»._e:*..;i..nj’u§ie§;

sustained, it has net resulted in :–Qi3% disei::i.iifiy”an:§j.”ti§*ie’g

petitioner being abie to dc’)””i’e»:V>:wEi*:er we~rk’,”‘iz3cizLisive of a
cleaner, there partiei’:d.iésab«iiiii9n(‘VA 2:0?/pg cavneiivse be the

less ef earning capacity.

9. ifiet’:»ee,iiA;:t_i)e*v §j;:)_n:.pen_se1tiVen,eVs assessed by the
C0mmvi_ses”iVenei*”‘ 753?-:_-quéred_:V”te…..,i?_€*5 scaied down. The
compensation >t’h’esV.’i’e_sm9ance Company has to pay to

the petii:i”enerv§s°R.s’§’E§’1;,3’2.»74;36,f~.

The <:eL'rs'e"Qf action for the ciairn having arisen

there was an ebiigatien on the pen': of the

ern.eioyer"'s:'1..end the insurer E0 have depesited the

cempevneetien within 38 days therefrom. The same having

eetfrseen eiene, the Commissioner has junsdictien to direct

' f.§*:e€*n te deeesii: tine cerneensetien wiici": interest at 32%

pe, by ineekieg see {3} es' fine Werkmees Cereeeeeeiiee

est. Wiinee: assigning easy reesee; 'zine ereer meee ie
E

2'

4%": ~.

9

deposit the compensation amount within 30

case of defauit, to pay interest at 12% p.,a .;W;.s ‘e§jreL.heeues_é

and is contrary to ratio of tale:

ALEEMUDDIN AND OTHERS THE’.-‘IL.f§IV’ISIi§.NAL’aV

MANAGER M/S NEW IN1:5’Ie;1§:5Vg:.”‘~ Assmeeéiee-E ‘”;:<:dMPANY

LIMITED; GULBARGAQLR 2Qb'é'VK§?;R"'?i4«22),

In the resutjg, e.pp'e_e;{esf:e'h{iIfa!lowed in part.
The impu:€1.n§<%*C.j,' modified. The
c0mpensVaVti'onf:"e'e§{ah!»ej"e§eh'e:S::,V'Vd%e£ermimed at Rs.8l,328/»,
which:V__Ash._aiIAiee'r::fy'_:ii'e'ni;'efesvt._ at-' 12% p.a. with effect frem
31.1.2(fi'O£e:_1'tiS£vv'the: The amount in deposit

ih_§f'iFAA. 336i?;;'A.E?:sf3:VG'9 fo the said extent be eaid to the

'.A a;)pe¥%_e§h'§: .é:h"-..MFA 5270/2009 and the baiance amount be

.re'fe%hde§'f"_*v:.Q, Insurance Cempahy. Parties ta bear their

reé§';:eeCvi§vev éests.

Safe
EEEDGE

éiegifl