._ 1 _ IN 'THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAIKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1973 BAY OF AUGUST 2008 BEFORE mm Horrnm mrwusncm 3.3. PATII} ' - ---.: 15.3.5. xa.14134 or-* 2907 ggg;~. fj;., 75] ' B E'l'VfEEN : The Branch Manager, " United india Insurance Compan3z__'I'.imitcd', ' P.B.No.I08, S.V.Nijlaya, B.M.Road,*}_Iassan. ' Duly Iegresented by; The Regional Manager, " v_ V' United India Insu;$a 13.§>c Cd. Ltdé, _" Regional Oflice; _ No.25, Shan1zara1;a}fayana1:Bfiiidi:1g,..' V . 1" Floor, M.(}.Rqa.. 5 V ' ' -- 3; . V:,S1'LN'a;1§eg:3_x}€da, Aged, abojit Sfiyears, ' * S/cs'. Sri; Eféxmgcgowda, R',!_o.MaHaziaya3<anaha1fi, Salgame Hobii, Hasfsf.ai1AVTa1uk, Hassem Disnict. K ' V2. " Si*3'._,'B.'V?.Gov*i11ciaIaj, " 'Aggd about 38 years, * ZS] o.S1i.Vishwanathasetty, __7Sathya11aray:-ma Transport, Society Road, ' Gandhi Bazax', Hassan ~ 573 201. REBPONDENTB 3 (By Sri.S.C}:1a1;an Nag, Adv. for R-1 Sri.R.SxiI1ivasa, Adv. for R»2) This appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of W._C).__ Act against the WCA.NF.SR.1)'2005 on the file of the labour Officcr and Commissioner for Workmen's Compeiriséztioii, Hassan, awarding a compensation of Rs.37,:"S6.'"S/ -- v;s*i'th..¢'i.*1te1'est~. @ 12% pa. This Appeal coming on for admissioii,' delivered the following: 1 V " _ ~ JunG:fi_E!I_I 1.
In this appeal, is
challenging the onder it by the
Commissioner fox Hassan. By the
impugned oxt’-iei’,: 1iéisv.aiwa1~ded compensation
in a sum of – ii1i?iti1″ii1te1est at 12% with effect
from the the date of accident for the
personal A’ttie«.t.i9esuitant loss of earI1:iJ3,g capacity
. ;;ufi’¢1€*d ‘die ci:iimant.v
‘tit;”v.e,si1:V”‘a;e’c-ident that occurred on 19.09.2003, the
clsimétit ‘xvtfis working as a loader suflemd fracture in the
« fight leftipubic bones. The Doctor who treated him has
“..g;1ae:§cs.::;;1 it his evidence that the fracture in the right pubic
‘-«i«.-boiteixiéas not united pmperiy and as a resuit, the iniumd was
” to squat and continue his duty as a leader. The Doctor
assessed the pezmanent disability at 13%. Based on the
%/.
_. 4 _.
the interest awaxded with effect from the expiry of 30 days
{mm the date of accident is unsustainable as the injury
suffered by the claimant is a 1103:).-schedule injuxy.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the
upon careful perusal of the materials eh ” is
findings recorded by the Commissioner. fr h0Itii:ig- i’mea:__i i at-V.;
claimant suffeied 15%» loss ofiiczsfiacityyis ;
from the evidence of the Doctor as The
evidence of the Doctor thereiiwiss fracture
of both left and right pubieibenesi. has produced
the case-sheet,2_’iX4if:if and has
spoken :’eoneisteir;t~tt5*the._same..’ In such circumstances, in
exercise ef, isppieilste’ under Section 30 of the
Worlagielfs Cetrxpetisatien Act, this Court cannot come to a
Zeeneizision. However, as regards interest awarded at
the expiry of 30 days from the date of the
_ accideI1f,V.__’C01ti1se1 for the appellant is right and justified in
R.””‘–._VVe’o;t1tenctie.§ that the injury suffered by the claimant being a
i igenesehedule injury, interest ought to have been awarded. with
efleet from the expiry 0130 days fm1:I1 the date of passing of the
Liiorder i.e. 04.04.2007. It is useful to refer to the decision of the
A? court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.