The Divisional Manager The New … vs Sri Nagendra Naik on 5 January, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALVKJRE

DATED THIS THE 5"' DAY or 3ANUAR\jV.,2.')(J_A$t9__'__*:'f  

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE . : :.R,KoMARA'ssM.nMfl?...._7

MISC. FIRST APPEAL.»i\:.Q,22A3A1V_"OF   l

BETWEEN

The Divisional Manager; _  > V  AA 
The New India AssuranceCo.,' Ltd«._,V'<[f~. 
JLB Road, Charr2undlou'r'arf'l, " 1 f
Mysore.   2;   " "
By its Reg__ional f),f.fic'e,_'    ..  V .
I\lo.2--E3, Un_itYjBuilding's»'.'An'rveAxe';'». 
P. Kaii_n.ga__R'a_o 'R<:')_.ao,~»._'  l  
(Missiaon Roao_),_A     E

Ba ngalé-ore¥550"O:'2A.7A  _  " __
R€[3|"€S€fl.t€d by'-it"s" ..  '
Regional |Vranagel:.   Appellant

 *  _ ('By B  Rajo ,"a"dv.)

1.   Naik,
S/o Srlshivanak,

* "Aged about 33 years,
 ' ..jn'V»Res":«.:;ling at Sindhuvalli village,
 " " _ ' =!\£a~n;'anagudu Taluk,
'  Mysore District.

5/



2. Sri Krishna,

S/0 Sri Naganaiak,
Residing at

Sindhuvaiii viiiage,
Nanjanagudu Taiuk,
Mysore District,

(owner of the iorry bearing

Registration. No.Ji<A-30/22). iéespowoerurys = in

(By Sri Nagaiah for R~1,  .

This Misceiianveous _'Fir_s:t*~..._Ap'p.eaI fiied under
Sec.30(1) of WC. Act ,ag'a_ir}:si; fhfenwjudgment dated
26/12/2007 passed in"WCA/i\[FC/'-CR5No.17/2007 on
the fiie of La'bourfOff'icer.,"and -Commissioner for
Workmen C2oni';iie'ns.a'tioin," |V_I'yso*rei*----~~f;)istrict, Mysore,
awarding 5'3 «.com':peri-s£I,_ti'on"7_of .Rs.1,63,3-44/-- with
interest at 1.2"'?/.o;r',p.a; '    

T.his_ J\x4xis'ce.¥.5_an,eo.4,js~.._First Appeal Coming on for

admission' this_day:,.Vtihe_:i'C,o;.:rt delivered the foiiowing:

  gmji o G M E N T

'iMiis§_eilaneous First Appeai is fiied under

SeAct_i_Vonv_.~3C_)!'('.V'1Ai) of the Workmen's Compensation Act

R"'"us:"agains.tr.-the Judgment dated 26/12/2007 passed in

4'_',._'W:CrA.,i'NFC/CR No.17/2007 on the me of the

A -Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mysore

2/



awarding compensation "of Rs.1,63,344/-- with interest

at12% per annum.

(2) With the consent of learned 

appellant as well as learned counsel fci'rV''res;jfondents,.t 2'

this matter was heard on  fie'

placed before the Court are--s't}~ff»icie'ntV..to--dlispVos4e' 'of': the 2'

matter at this stage, 

(3) Parties wéfl  referred ttQ_it--h_'.:Vrle'ference to the

status.~i'ri'i'*tliAé; Clio"-§t;::e*--t'. "off-Comrnésvsioner for Worl<men's

C0mpeVn.satiori..   V

 VTAheA'"c'a~sel of the ciaimant before the

 Workmen's Compensation is as

under:,.'2

 22 '"a__Claémant was working as a Hamafi under the

'  elmpioyment of Respondent No.1. On 27.12.2006 near

 Eiigigere on Nanjangucl-Ooty-Mysore Road, the lorry

(7./



bearing l\EO.§<A--18--9999 met with an acciden.t'.',:.'_"_V1n

the lorry the claimant was discharging 

Harnali under the employment of Res--ponfjent:::No.1:l  

Due to the accident, the c!a_im:a'n..t' hasjwstlizi-.i.n't2:4:i;

injuries. Claimant was aj_e*:l_about' 33 &,?.eaVr_s«---and her."

was drawing salary of Rs.4,A(_3..€)uVCAi;'.: per mor'.--th. 

(5) Respondent  vehicle in
question,  fi:EedX_a"ny.j_4'e:t§jxe'c'tions to the claim
petition   for Worl<men's

  

_(v6) i"'TheV.V",secvoridiV respondent -- Insurance

 'has i'ile'd'"the objections statement in the

t...Cc\urtc' oi?-«._cCoVrarnissioner for Worl<men's Compensation

deri-ying'the?'averments made in the claim petition.

it Vh"~«_i(7) The sum and substance of the findings of

  the learned Commissioner for Wor¥<men's

 Compensation are as under:

6/!



The Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

taking the wages of the claimant at Rs.3,0Q0}f=..i_:'_p.er

month and considering his age as 

adopting the relevant Factor of__i2..O.1,66:'a"nV'd*:'asses'sing_V 

the loss of earning capacity at-i4Ef_%" 

compensation of Rs.1,63,VLl'%:4E¥/4:»  x l' V

45/100). _
(8) Feeling aggrillei/_ed"i3.y;"the appellant

, Insurance :(Zohjp.an3i?_A  thils appeal.

   learned counsel for the

appeliant ?9=IIf_iVsLI.iT.'c*inC'vE' 'Company as well as the learned

"'«..,cQLgitplses/i..oifor_Res'po'ii'd'ent No.1 i.e. claimant, Though

ll'-_n"ot.ic'e on the Respondent No.2, he

rem..aine~d absent.

it  x_;l"'*~«_i(10) Learned counsel for the appellant submits

 that it is in the evidence of the doctor that the

 claimant has suffered disability of 32.5% to the whole

2/



(1

body. Whereas the Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation has assessed the loss 

capacity at 45% instead of 32.5%.

(11) Learned counsel for'-.V_A.theC.'v_--v_.Aresp'.ontfi'ent'~,

supports the impugned V.

(12) I have V  the records
including the ej\:iid_enc;:e1i;;'e'arned counsel
for the  the evidence of
the doctor.'V.tt:;Vat;é:'the  suffered disability of
32.50/iitof the  Whereas the Commissioner

for Workm'"'enV_"s Comperisation has assessed the loss of

 c'a.oacity"""'a'tV 45% eventhough the disability

 doctor is 32.5% to the whole body.

There i__s'for*ce in the submission of the learned counsel

the-Cagapeliant. It is not in dispute that the

rc_:ia'imant has suffered disability of 32.5% tothe whole

 "body. Therefore since the disabiiity suffered by the

5/



 V.  _yfoIioCrvi:j-g:  A.

claimant is 32.5% to the whole body, in my 

ioss of earning capacity wiii be equal to 

age of the ciaimant is 33 years and there»fojf'~e:'iieieyanitv 

factor appiicabie is 201.66. Th_erefofe'tith'.e..'¢ii3'i"rnja.nt~is

entitieci for a compan_sa_tion"'-i.'ofV 

(Rs.1,800 x 201.66 x 32.5/iota).i.ct_niis*«campensation
amount bears interesbat from one
month fromynthe   by the
Commission§efi_Viior:7__\i\i:oit.i{r*nen'yfsi«'c_;C%comVpensation tiil the

date 53.;   '

_(13i''I-nV'vieVw o'f:ti3"e above discussion, I pass the

ORDER

1. uThisa.M.iVs.ceiianeous First Appeal is aiiowed in part.

“‘T.he” compensation amount of Rs.1,63,344/– as

iiiaiyvarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s

Compensation is reduced to Rs.1,17,971/–.
e,/

Lr

” .

The claimant is entitled for interest at :;.>°,?:.§f~.§;5’e.r

annum from one month from” the

adjudication till the date of pa”y>ment«.”‘”= –:.1f_~,

The excess amount, if,any,’t*sAn’a._!.!

the Insurance CompanqY*….4,:”‘~..e»