M.F.A.NO.44~8 4 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE gm DAY OF DECEMBER 2010
BEFORE 2 'V 2
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V 2'
Misggllaneous First Apgeai NO'.'44§3_[
BETWEEN:
THE BRANCH MANAGER
NEW INDIAASSURANCE CO. LTD. _ V.
NO.224O/4, 1 FLOOR, GiRlAMM_A SHAMBU'
GOWDA COMPLEX, CHURCH. A . "
CHANNAPA'I'NA-- 571 501
NOW REPRESENTEDVBYITS H '
SR. DIVISIONAL MANAGER
DMSIONAL OFFECE NO.f_1
No.40, LAKSHM;_.C..OM';3LEx~. « _V V
1{.R.ROAD FORT. ..APPELLANT
[BY SMT. 'EH1ifA?;vANDA;«.AEVO~cATE}
AND :
1. SR1 KEMPE GOWDA V
S/o LATE SR1. KARGE GOWBA
56 \.fEAR.S . '
UYY'AMBALi,I GRAMAAND I-IOBLI
2 - 'KANAKAPURA TALUK
» BA RURAL DISTRICT
2." ._SM_"_1'.« M=uNi5_,iNGA'MMA
W/O LATE 'CAHIKKA 'i'Hi1\/IMAIAH
UYYAMBAI; GRAMA AND HOBL1
KAN;J{APURA TALUK
ABANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT ..RESPONDENTS
u[};>’_Yw.SRi2″M.E.MOHAN KUMAR. ADVOCATE FOR R~1:
N{)”1;ECE3 TO R-2 IS DISPENSED Wi’FI~i.)
M.F.A. ES FiLED UNDER SECTEON 30(2) OF THE W.C. ACT
OKVAOAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 2.12.2008 PASSED iN
«~ W.C.NO.27/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFKIER AND
M.F.A.No.448g2009
COMMISSIONER FOR VVORKMENS COIVIPENSATION. SUB
DIVISION4. BANGALORE. AWARDING A COMPENSATION
Rs. ] 42,338/W WI’I’I-I INTEREST @ 12% RA.
M.F.A. COMING ON FOR ORDERS nus DAY, we
DELIVERED THE F’OIiI.OWING:
J U D G M E N T 2
Notice to respondent: No.2 is ”
2. By consent of the learned counselI’appeaifing”foI’ I
parties, the appeal is heard
disposed of by this judgtnent.
3. This appeal by the Co. Ltd. is
direeted:V’Eagainst}VtheI:’jIIudg1n’ent’, 02.12.2008 passed
by the Courts’ 0fE’tI1.eI’«.@b»m1*nissione1* for Workmen’s
Compensation’. [)Eivis’ion-4, Bangalore, in WCA/B«
‘:i,»m4¢y eR–2’*z/2oo7″_’ “”” ” ‘V
eontention urged by the learned counsel
appeafing_fol4i.V_the appellanteinsuranee Company is that
the doc:t<)r":.who was examined in the case has not stated
as to the percentage of loss of earning capacity
.,._flsufIi"ered by respondent: No.1~workman as contemplated
W WWW",
_ $7
is E
/:53 2 ,4.'
3, 4}v''/
-& ,a, I,
(3 3 9
E .
if
M.F.A.No.448 [2009
under Section 4{1)[C}[1i] read with Explanation II thereof of
the Employee’s Compensation Act. I923. Learned cotinselp
appearing for respondent No.l~workman
dispute this submission. In View of this, the_yviin.piigf11ed it
judgment is liable to be set aside and
to be remitted to the Commissionerhe-£01′
Compensation for reconsideration’ in aeeortiance, with
law.
5. In View of the above; order:
[i) the in1’p’ipig’:1ed::order: is
H set” * ‘ né;attef_”’ié remitted to the
l*–._C’o:t1rt Commissioner for
WoprkrvneilfsllCornpensation, Sub DiVision~
‘Bangalore, “for reconsideration in
C ?i.A’-elaceordaneeiifith law;
,{ii}.__ “a:io’th”the parties are at liberty to adduce
evidence, if any, but strictly
the time to be granted by the
*~ l’;Commissioner;
.es__[.A1iilNthe Commissioner shall dispose of the
A matter expeditiously and in any event
within four months from the date of
M
ii
iii,
Q” 4/.
_ K,
/,
M. F.A.No.448 @009
receipt/production of a copy of this
ord er .
‘ihe appeal stands disposed of in the above
The appellant is permitted to withdraw the an1Qu–nf,.: .
in deposit with this Court.
Appeal disposed V
Sh} / ~a1;a