Sri Rama Poojary vs Shekara Poojary on 24 November, 2008

M.F.A.NO.8694 [2008
- 1 -

128 THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

I)A.'i'fi'J) THIS THE 24*" DAY OF KOVEEIBER   

BEFORE

THE nmrnnn MKJUSTICE H.a.RAMmé{i   "  

M.F.A.No.8694/.2008 & 
BETWEEN:  Z  ' J

SR1 RAMA POOJARY
S/ O BACHA POO-JARY
AGED ABQUT 32 YEARS 

R/O I-{OSAVAKLU maze, A VVVV _
MALLANBE'PI'U,PQ'S'Ef_KONI, _ _  
xuNDAPURATA;;u1€;wT.L.4-'  :  _  .. ...APPEL§_.AI~F1'

(BY SR1 Paizgm

ARE:

1 SHEKAEQA P'cs.oJA'm"~  
S/O BACEIA PQOJARY. 
AGED AEQUT38 YEARS

', {R/<3» HOSAV.$KLU MANE,
V. ifiALLANBE'TPU',*-POST KONI,

'' " « _ 3 ' :A_Pu.RA TALUK.

   :€;a¥€*1'<:::~"a%u-i§rsU:2ANcE co LTD

. '=REPB";1j BRANCH MANAGER
 BRA~i'{§CH.-- OFFICE, 131* FLOOR
"C.A?~§Es'a MAHAL,
MUNECIPAL MAEN ROAD,

 n .T ,_KUVNI1)APURA  RESPGNDENTS

-A'I"'I'*1§S MFA FKLED U/'S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT AGAINST THE

 "*JUj{)GMENT DATED 2337,2008 PASSEE} IN WCA/'CfiR~
  2;8.]NF'/2007, ON THE FILE OF' THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
 COMMISSIONER FUR WOR'KME'.N'S COMPENSATION, UDUPI

.~ V DIS'I'RICT, UDUFI, ¥'z°xR"I'LY ALLOWiNC': THE CLMM PE'I'I'I'1OI*-I

FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEEQNG ENHANCEMENT OF
COMPENS&'FiON.



M.F'.A.NO.8694/2098

-33..

THES APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS  i3}':.Y,

'THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGIEENT

This appeal by the claimanpis dir::Cie§f_Vs§¢gz§iI'1st.L 4 A x 

the order dateé 23.'7.20(}8:'-__ pas§3e &. 

Commissioner for Workrm-:"::.. _V Compén  ' V I It}: {pi

I)is1':z'ict, Udupi in cage 
By the impugxed Vdr¥{ér.,   "'¥:,5£j}fL.i;LV§x3.i$sioner has
awarded a co'1'_=.::.tpV(_3I1sz~i:'Lt'i(")'1h:{:'::<:1v1.':'  to the
appellant/' by him
in a motor %%%%   on 4.1.2200?
involving   No.KA-20~15.-2221
belongng to  It has also awarded

i_;1-'£+z:1_festV_*"€3ii1e:'t{_f*;(33'1v%_@ '1'2%___p.a. from 22.8.2088 an the

d.2{t--c-2   "file award amount by respondent

‘ V ‘ ‘ .. ___Ne. 2-Ii1sii1:;an(&:e~V’ Qoiizpany.

,have”}1ea1*c} Sri H.Pavana Chandra Shetty,

“ct{)unse1 appfiaring for the appeliant anti.

VT . V __ the iznpugxeri order.

Bk

M.F’.A.NO.8694f20()8
_ 3 _

3. The sole contention urged by
appellant] ciaimant is that the Commissioner}mael.A’~’
in law in assessing the percentage of >
capacity of the claimant at ‘or
impugleci order would show.4_j:ha4f:”‘
the Commissioner is in flfiledical
evidence adduced by ground

to admit the appeal. ‘V

d