IN THE HEGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 08?" DAY OF 3UNE 2009
PRESENT
THE Homme MR.Jusm:E K.L. MANJUNAT§§l:'--V..Vv A n
AND
THE I~i0N'BLE MFLJUSTICE (2.3. KUM;_£1\§F£ASW$§rE\'f" "
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEA:;V'Fs§:>.535Oi2'o$0--:'%1(\:9:;)
§ M
THE BRANCH MANAGER H
Nszmom. INSURANCE CQMPANYALIMITEDV '
MANDYA _ 3 _
TROUGH ITS REGIONAL {DFEICE
H0144, SUBHARAM CGMFLEX _ __
M.G.ROAD, BANSQLQRE '~,S63 C01" "
RE-PRESENTE9 BY "iTSé f'eSS"i'". ADM; QFFHCER
i<UM.E).KARTHI¥<IA. V V _ "APPELLANT
'~ ._ {BY 453}; __B C, SEE'TH13iPJ3e.¥5453x RAE), ADVGCATE}
&§§iu.i?;:,'
1" cC';_~;.AN':aLATa cmwwesowoa
: { _fb} "A$M?--{§HANNAMMA
MAJOR
V% __ys:/0 LATE CHALUVMAH
RE3i'--'C>NDrENTS 1(a) T0 1(b)s1x.RE
Ri-'E$IDEl'\£T QF S£5.BBt'-'aNAHfl.LLI VELLJKGE
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA 1::2s"¥"R.zcT.
2. A R SHIVASHANKAR
MAJOR, S/C) A.S.R,AMEGOwGA
AR.A.K.E.RE VELLAGE
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK
MANBYA DISTRECT. ...rzEs;><3rss:3E;~¢i"?s.' A A'
{BY SR1: S V TILGUL, ADVGCATE FOR
SRE: NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, ADVQC,ATE
FOR RESPONEENTS 1(a) AND 1(b)} '
"n-«us MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL 1.?s:,r=1L_EJD°:.::\3TE;E_§:( --S_EcT1'<§w
39(1) 0? "me woR:<MEN's COMPE?\éSAT1ON---- ACT Ac;;:.::x:s1' THE =
JLIDGMENT ANS ORDER DATED 29,5;20'{}4'£?§.SSE£:v.1N wCA:_NF:§'??!2.Q§3
ON THE FILE of: THE LABOUR OFFICER» 'mo COMMESSIONER FOR
w€':RiEF«'..-ANNUM
AND GIRECTING THE APPELLANTV HEREINfTO _DE¥>.QsI'F--THE SAME.
ms MISCELLANEOUS FxasfA§r>EAL:'co:~¢:b:t:'_'§;N'_::=oR HEARING
BEFORE THE COURT THIS,_DAY, K.i.iMAN3Ui%ATH,'vJ.,"{DELIVERED me
FOLLOWING:-- V * '
The apzpeflaati's3.§fiV$§z§§é-:.:§Gnépamy has fiied this Appeal
chaiienging .thg LIa¥'ah._£liAt*g anAé- ééfrectness of the Grder of the
Cf§vf?:mi'ss'§;neé«r"':fo'r..\f\Io:;ift:§.ri'£';ijo:fia;_A% df workmerfs Compensation Act, in
'wcA: #i'F:.,£:5:7/2i3£}3:§';e5é;ted 29.5.2094.
Vmelvfécts of this case are as under:
C%:§ié'AChann@owda, aged about 30 years, ciaiming ta
Tbe: tfié'Ter:2pioyee amder arse A.R.Shivashar:i_Vt?1ei§ 2;; asagerzae, assess 5:53,; aififie
" sssss «em; 2{1Xc:)?.76;) eggs:
_ visfgi-szijesaeflgbzaeczs mmwmamos?
2. {"}?.§£}?':yfiSE$GG M53659 agamtiaoés 2,3:='36'z¢§Q zggasefzzzvi'
f?'."»*:~".\ 6:25 :'~.")«§E"&R7§'.,'==%>%'.5o~--aa
'P7.
fiéajégxibaig mmnogoow, mamas: asse:
3355s' E50«:'\)&fi§fi0d;') maoes-§oa"u&:fowr5e?
4, emaposa wmazieé @233 L.
mmmm Eabmfiafizdg V'
wfifmfitzfiuagfi?
5. ée mg escfieéfieafis?
In order to prove the...¢ontgsa1'tV§VoVr;-- 'o"fo._§ho o'a'i*t§e.-so, the
cfaimant got himseff examir}'éo__a$" also relied
upon E><.P.1 to Ex.vP4..§'.v.ofi.':'.t_h¢vvwogiondents, two
documents
3. _ ri<men's Compensation,
after consi_deriog--«..the.e §:ééo;" the parties, came to the
;:3":*.£Vl_;:§ic:s:;fff2. thoo "c'Ea§«mant, during the course of his
erfipfoykfiont;v..f:'as§"vs§istained injuries, which resulted in toss of
:7"<.___ge'arning..¢a§aoi§3}'oi'jh§}'u1GO%. Ac::ording!y, be calculated the
_ '=..;ompensatiori'payable to the workman and passed an award
the empioyer as was! as the Insurance Company to
@*oo"oojpayT«'oothe compensation of as.4,99,;:.s2,/- with interest at 12%
h' '.fLv--...p'ér=.Véo'num. Chalienging the same, the present Appeai is
5
4. We have heard the leaned counsel appearingV"th'e_V_
parties. The main contention of the learned couns_ei"'fo--r.'_~tfle
appeilant before this Court is that the claim petitie.tj':wae:::n«ot "
maintainable, as the risk of the clalmaet wasnot_co$i'ered .'
the Insurance Company. According.¢_to hife_,_"'the Peii'c3{
by the Insurance Company was cei3e_fed_V onliy---_ih'fesoect of
two employees, namely the:4_'D,.rive_}' afja':c.;h'e"'£;onductor. He
alternatively contends that by the
claimant was only in 'felgiard to wrist'"ene'*--"h'e--nd and there was
ne injuries "£eg--.V,an'd' £eg"'*vl:as not amputed on
account of in the accident and
therefore, the con'%:petlsatiAc;n: 'eiéivarded by the Commissioner
for..Werk_mien:*e' £omoe'r":set.£oe is en the higher side.
ffleiarned counsel ansearirze for the legal
:'*~r'epreseht.aVtive$~ deceased ctaiment made an attempt to
the jyeement of the Commissioner for Workmerfe
and he requests the Court to eismiss the
6
6. Having heard the learned counsel fer the parties; _
have to consider the foliowine substantial questiefi4_j'OfVie:§v..iAnit"
this Appeai.
Whether the
Workmen's Compensation h:_e's.v:_cernmitted:v'_an_E
errer in fixing the ifiahiiityflqhVi"theVvt"~Insurante
Company and in éifeCting7' V'I.h;§uf_rance
Cempany to pey__the:Cb'm;$'enea1§i»eh Vasezefivarded
by him? '»
7. for two empieyees.
According £9 fer the respondent,deceaeed wee and therefore, the
iiainiiity to be on the Insurance Cernpany.
ieeariied.:’Vteeii;ni5e!v:’vA’faVr the appeiiant dew not dispute the
Eiabiiiw eefyz.efe€¥”~v’§nn ef the Ccnductcr. In this case, in
V”setVp_rivate”‘Bes;e.’:e Cenductor is aiso discharging the work ef the
‘ u4”_:f§i4ee.n;er..__{:on’sidering the Peficy issued by the appeiiant, we
that risk of the ciaimant is aise covered
‘Viun;ier–**the iiioiicy. Accordingiy, we answer the said point
63/
1?
against the appelient and in favour of
representatives of the claimant.
8. It is the case of the appeilarzt ti3at;’_i:ii~e dieceeeeeii
sustained injury only to his indexfiiiiger en-dV:__hi.s
has been amputee. we haxge seeo__:ifie:._Disohefg’e.efyuiriinary,
which disciosxes complete _thumb and
amputation to index i’in_ger._…. does
not disciose the iiffiiiury to the right
ieg. Commissioner for
Workmeifs an error in heiding
that on accoo’m:L:”of vibe’:i’iijAuii:ee,”‘sostained by the deceased,
during the’c’oi;rse.Vo’i’..iiisV”e;*opIoyment, has resuited in 100%
In View of i3ert~2, Scheéuie-I of
the viieirigiiieiiis..vy’V_Coini;:ensation Act, considering the total
T”vv:.yHeformity”i.to tire-fiigixt thumb and amputation of index finger,
‘””‘i4.ie*..o’ei;ee_to.tzoiisider the ‘ices of earning capacity’ at 20%
consider the ‘ioss of earning capacity’ at 20%, we
“i:e}ve……ie reduce the compensation awarded by the
,,,,,.._ii”*t¢ornmissioner for Weri<men's Cemperzsation. At this stage, it
63/
8
would be relevant to observe that there is no plea.€li_?l§\SV.
evidence to show that the right leg of the dece’aee::l_V.§$ies» H
amputed on account of the injuries susi:ain’e€l ln’..Ath_e’jele:*§;lV:ever;£.
Without there being any basis, :(Ie_£r:m§esvlAefier’~
Worl<men's Compensation has tl'.ie=.'lessVhflwlleerfiirea
carnacity' at 180°/o. Therefore, w.e"'i'r:eVye'VVVte.1hole"the*"ecteal
'loss of earning capacityléllgf at 20%,
Accordingly, we have _to vv'eompensat§on
payable to the' ef the deceased
claimant. ….
9. Coneleeefine ‘the tea» the index finger and
complete defc;rmal’fy’..:Vefrebel”-thlilhmb, lose of earning capacity
Flee ‘ta m;£a:<an atrzofl/oA.vV"'ifAit is so, the legal representatives
of 'file__a.deeeaae§iV"r-flaimant are entitled for 1/5"' of
7_"w::empense4l:ien.-evxfarded by the Commissioner for wo:'kmen's
_. pensatiém 3
the rwult, the Appeal is allowed in part. The
V Ce'-.e§;i"erlsation awarded by the Commissioner for werkmen's
4.”<rberrspensetion is reduced from Rs.4,99,152/- to
T3/_
9
Rs.1,00,GOG/- with interest at 12% per annum as arj:’:e’reue:Vi’__’__b§é’
the teamed Commissioner for Workmerfs Comper:sVa’t.ior{:” _
11. It is stated by the learned coanse; ea;-r ine:’a.I5’L3ali:ajn«tT
that in terms of the award, the en_tire”A’aracaat’.:V”fza._$««vbeen
deposited by the appe£lant~V1nsuraf;aejA’?:empaajk.”A. iffis so,
Registry is directed to caiauiaiea{heV%.:.af;fi6£jvf3£V:payable to the
lega! representativesaf along with
intermt tiil the the insurance
Company. E:g¢eaa.. ta the appe£lant-
Insurance cheque in the name of the
appellant~§nsa’r’a;fice amount payable to the
leqai repragaenetatiaeav.af’t’ha aia;mant shall be paid to them by
tovvaaaper identification by the ieamaci
cou’r2zAse§:_iV aépresentatives of the ciaimant.
Sd/”’E ‘
Judge
an