in I
MFA No.20813 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD I
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY op' NOVEMBERIAC %
BEFORE %Mif.;%II'I'
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.s.9_4é;Tig, «
MISCELLANEOUS FiRST APPEAL No';
BETWEEN:
Sri Ramesh,
S/o Smt. Gangamma,__"~ .
Age: 27 years, Occ: Hanialig f
R/o: Vinobnagar, H" I V
Chikkaj antkai. post, ji
Tq: .Gangava:hi,;;1jf/& ; '1Koipp"a1.":e" " ...APPELLAN'I'
(By Sri.
A N 1).: I I I
1. The bivisioria! iNia;;.§§ge"r",
M /is. New Iridia-_ Assurance Co. Ltd.,
B_§e1la1'y, bi"s€::._Be11a:7y.
;. ecgsrinivas,
V S /n_ }--Iamii11anthappa,
. C'Age:'iM.aj_oi;"Owner of lorry
' .._Bearin_gj;No.MEI{ 4572,
R/o:"_17th Ward, Ukkadakeri,
AA Taospet, Dist: Bellary. ...RESPONDENTS
A i–,,(VBy V.R.Datar, Advocate for R1)
This miscellaneous first appeal is filed under
“Section 30(1) of the Workmen’s’ Compensation Act
MFA N0.208l3 of 2008
against the order dated 28.03.2008 passed in
W.C.No.3’73/2005 on the file of the Labour Officer and
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppel,’
This miscellaneous first appeal CO1’1_’_1.i’f1’gl
admission this day, the Court delivered the –fo11ow.ir1-gzl —
JUDGMEQT “-« ~
This appeal is filed iiirije11red4elrripioyee
aggrieved by the quantumi’of’-comipenlsationlaigvarded
the Commissioner _for Wo’rk_me_n’s it ‘Compensation,
Koppal, and seeking same.
i:ithe,j”rriatterwisfi listed for admission,
havingA’reg”ard’ to lthewnature of the controversy raised,
which fallslin-.a’short compass, the same is taken up for
. ‘I … _ . . . . ..
” ” 3,ifi ah acddentthatcmcuned on 24IXi2005,
l¥__VVh€1’1″ appellant was discharging his duties as a
under the 15* respondent in the lorry owned by
the 1st respondent, he met with an accident and
MFA No.20813 of 2008
suffered fracture in his left leg and other injuries The
Commissioner, on the basis of the evidence
has found that the accident arose out of
course of employment and thait””‘thet if
was earning Rs.3,000/~ per of
capacity resulting from has’
been assessed at relexflrant factor viz.,
219.95, a total sum awarded as
compensation;”~«;.Vp:y1″ ._
4. coun’sel for the appellant has
canvassed’ two”:poi11t§;_’.i}.. that the Commissioner has
erred in ure,strictin,<§Atheiikvages earned by the injured to
p_ and iii)"ch.a.tiinterest awarded at the rate of 12%
effect from expiry of 30 days from the
deter' of is illegal in the light of the judgment
rendered lay the Apex Court in the case of Oriental
A ":i"_I1isit_rance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Nasir & another
reported in 2009 AIR sew 3717.
5 ..
MFA No.20813 of 2008
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
insurance Company has supported the
recorded and the compensation awarcled
Commissioner.
6. Having heard the learné_d”‘:coiiniselV
parties, the substantial of law for” C
consideration are:
1) Whether the right and
justified in rievstriictirig ‘:the’V.Wagels earned
by ”
awarded by the
the rate of 12% with
C it effect’ from eicpiry of 30 days from the date
“order is illegal?
contended by the learned counsel for
‘V theiilappelliant, in the absence of any material elicited in
the’u.cross–examination of the claimant or by any other
independent evidence by the appellant-insurance
company, the Commissioner was not justified in
MFA E\Eo.20813 of 2008
restricting the wages earned by the ciairnant to 26,_days.
It is not shown by leading any evidence
claimant was paid only for 26 days in a
allowed to rest for the reInaining”perioo’d5.LHit_::.isV.iaiso he
noticed here that the wage
also the minimum amounitithiat a forth
the nature of the to
have discharged at the as a hamai.
Therefore, pas.sedVAihy.”‘t1i1eV.fiCommissioner to
that extent: If the amount is
at Rs.3,000/– without
restriCtin_:g’itV compensation payabie will
come -to Rst}, £564. –.
the interest awarded, as rightly
counsel for the appellant, even in
respect”of.<persona1 injury, the claimant is entitied for
payment of interest from the date of petition as held by
"thie 'Apex Court in the decision in Oriental Insurance Co.