High Court Karnataka High Court

The Branch Manager United India … vs Sri Sangaiah S/O Bhikshaiah … on 21 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
The Branch Manager United India … vs Sri Sangaiah S/O Bhikshaiah … on 21 August, 2008
Author: H.Billappa
IN THE HIGH comm' OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBA§§<3A'..
BEFORE ' """ °'

THE HONBLE MR. v..IUSTICI§'§.V}'i_;4iE3VI:L§;'2i}?4}:?;€x  A x 

DATED THIS THE 2  (31='%AzTT:{}i;s?r7éei§8i  %'

M.F.A.  1f2_£)06..   
MFA. CROB.No. 339/2006  MFA; No,342 1/2006 (WC)

ME-'A.No.342 1 12666     

Between:     V

The Brat:-ch_M.arsage1f, _ _'
Uhitcéd India"  Co.Ltd. ,
Bijapur, Pep. by ifis '

The Deputy Managsr,

; 'United Ixxdié Irxsurance Co.Ltd. ,
C ._ ' 'R;':=gioI1a1 Ofiiatz:-:.--,« ' '

Sha11.karaI1arayana Building,

 VA  " '  Road,
 ..__«BVa;igaIo1'e456O 001. .. AJEPELLANT

 (I:"§§fS;"i";S1r1ivana:*1d Pati}, Adv.)

'  Srisangaiah,

S/o.Bhikshaia;h Melinamata
Aged: 30 years,

R] aKoravara, Sindagi,
Bijapur District.

V



2. Sri.\f1jayakumar,

S/ 0. Chandrashckara @

Chandrama Uppar @ Katti,

Major,

R/a.Af}alapura Takke,    j "   " ._  
Bijapur District.   ' 

(By Sxé.Babu.H.Metaguddi, Acafifor R¢1--;?s '  
Sri.A.B.Nanjappa,   V     "

MFA.CROB.No.3.39/2005;." 
in MFA.No.3421/20()6'_  A    

BETWEEN;     '

S/o.Bhik*$§*1§;yyaa_ 1?:r.Ie'15x1.raat11,%
A'g"ed'3Qiiyeaf'S',' V'  
C)cc:._ €3oo1i«:t--,._ ,lo'.'Kd3:~a_.v:ar,
Tatuk; Sizxdagi, 

Dist: Brgjapttr."  ..  .. APPELLANT

V'  '(By SIiV.I3a1V)i;:;H.I vIetagudda, Adv.)

~.   Manager,
A  Ur)jtCti..~India Insurance Co.Ltd.,
" S.'Sé.Front Road, Bijapur,

H " . ff5(By Srishivanand Patil, Adv.)

mat: Bijapur. .. RESPONDENT

This MFA.No.3-421/06 is filed 1}./S.3O(1) 0f WC Act
against the jtldgmem; and order dt.9~»I2-2005 passed in
WCA/SR-51/2004 on the file of ths Labour Officer as

L/%

Commissioner for VVorkmen’s Commnsation, Sub-
Divisien-I, Bijapur, awarding compensation of
Rs.95,305/– with interest at 12% from 4-7-H2003. till the
date of order and directing the appellant to
deposit the same. ” .;.

MFA.CROB.No.339/ 2006 is fiie–c§..1:1~,lO;<§iA R22 so-ft'
CFC against the judmezttlmarxd' '.o1*cler"i1t9~-.12-'20G'5
passed in WCA/SR–51/2005! en ..theee.file"ef"€i2e «
Offmer & Commissioner for"Wé;r_1<Inenj's Compensation,
Sub–Division~I, Bijapur,.._V partly allejwiaflg./Vth;e claim
petition for compensatiotzend seekiI1g'.=e1i?f1anoement of
compensation and ____seei<§:1g ' «-enhaxicement of
compensation witi1._18%{iI1te1fest;-._

This MFA on for hearing
this day, _eoutt' delifreretl. the'. fo1iowir1g:~

" ~ L l It gmnemwr

2 Pail}, Advocate, accepts notice fer

a§3pe1lént*——ez1d submits, he will file vakalath in the

V "

“support of the application, I.A.I/2006 is allewed and the

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

. 3. Accepting the reasons stated in the affidavit in

delay of 35 days in filing the cross-objection is

condoned.

4. This appeal and the

directeé against the judgnent’ ili2l–l

2005 passed by the fer=
Compensatiofl, Bijap211*;’=§I1f’WCe.SR.’Ne;Slli1,?l§Od4. it

5. By ._ award, the

cempensation of
at 12% 13.21.

by that, the appellant herein has

it filed and the first respondent has filed the

it . nt$i’0$s?el}jlecfions.

.3 The learned counsel for the appellant

it .ce;}tended that the Commissioner was not 3’ustified in

it aesessing the iess of earriing capacity at 30%. He also

submitted that the Commissioner has assessed the

ices cf earning capacity at 30% based on the evidence of

l/

1 1. It is relevant to note, the Commissioner has

awarded compensation of Rs.95,305_{‘§–. the

loss of earning capacity at__30%,

for the appeltant contendeci-that “thel was ‘A

not justified in assessizlgg’-flee Ides ofVVea;ezii_§ig~~capacityL’ at
30%. I do not ti1§e”coIztenfion of the
learned counsel ’tile, -for the reason, the
Doctor at 35% to 4-0%. The
of tibia and fibula. it has
of movements of the Ieft lmee and

the in climbing the steps. The

.. to do the work which he was doing

~ __ea_rfier.%Vé””f{_’herefore, the Commissioner has assessed the

capacity at 30%, which wnnot be said to

§nre asonable. So also the wages. The claimant

AA ~._c1aia1s, he was earning Rs.3,50()/~– per month, but has

not produced any documentary evidence. Therefore, the

Commissioner has taken the wages at Rs.2,500/- per

month which cannot be said to be unreasonable.

V

Beis. ‘

Therefore, in my considered view,
the contention that the
in assessing the losspeoéf
taking the wages at -V. V$.<:'cordi:f7§gly,
it is rejected.

 '    'Jappeal and alsoigiae _
  they are liable to qg

deeneeege,-e »e'
  13. '  they are dismissed.

          sd/-I
Iudge

ee-etseeee W W 
h/.

 



 

HBJ:
29-8-2008

ORDERON'FORBEi1\IG  ' 1 A

The amount in deposit’; ;b’e_ t»h¢

Commissioner for Workmegfs Cofiipensatiéng. V”S£:b43Division’ I.

Bijapur, for payment.