The Divisional Manager vs Hafeezur Rehman on 29 May, 2008

M . F'.A.Ng.2065[ 200§

IN THE EIIGH COURT OF KARNATMQ AT BANGALORE }

DATED mm mm 2918 mm or MAY 2003   
nmrom  'V 
mm aorrnm mz.Jus'rxcm    Z

BETWEEN:

THE DIVTSIONAL MANAGER

NEW XNDIA ASSURANCE co. LTD.

DHARWAD  . 

BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER  '. V

AT ITS REGIONAL OFFICE * 'A T .   .

2--B, UNITY BUILDING ANNEXE _ 5 '

MISSION ROAD   --  "  1  
BANGALORE-56_.Oi;f¢§CAf:fég7;  '
"D:  ' . ' .    1. I  , . -.
1 HAFEE2;UR"~ '
MAJOR BY AGE.  _   
3/o ABTDULGANI 'sgxvarg, OR

R/' O }3AC<AL'K,O'F' ._ .
I31'1.'GAI,KO'l'-».1'3§S'1'RIC3'?.'

 'V  --. ' ---§HABBI'R.AHM19iE'b 

.  MA.JoR--3Y~--AGE
" V _ S,?O"«MEHRB(3;.OBSAB BANQAR
._ *- R./O'B}kGAL:KU'}'
A §3AGALK€:'r' DIS1'RIC'I'

 ' *3 MA1§1AM MED MEHABOOBSAB MANIYAR

MAJOR BY AGE
., AA ' 0 LOKAPUR, MUDHOL 'TALUK
x  QQAGALKOT DISTRICT ..RE8PONDENT8

THIS MFA IS FILE?) U/S. 30(1) (a) CF WC ACT AGAENST

  "'FH--E JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2007 PASSED IN WC.NF'.N0.
 "fzoofzoov on THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFF'iCER AND

Hiscellaneous First _A_.,pgga!  (1  -- . V' V    , 



 . §)6.Q3f:2()Q'?.  %

M. F.g.ug.g0§5( goog

COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEIWS COMPENSATION,

BAGALKOT, AWARDiNG A COMPENSATIQN 0?' RS. 1,92,21V3--/ --

WITH INTEREST @ 12% RA.

'I'HiS APFEAL COMING on FOR ASMISSION T333.' " 

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 

This appeal by New India 

Ltd. is directed against the judgment do€ted_ 

passed by the  of   for
Work:n:1en's    _ in case
No.WC.NF.20O/V   of
Rs.1,92,213_:/«a  at i2% from
20.01.2003   amount for the
employIi1'1eI1t4"'   by respondent No.3

herein in eccident that occurred on

the learned counsel for the

the impugaed judgment and the

questions of law raised at para V of the

of appeal.

My

M.Ef.A.flo§20§5*3[200§

3. Learned counsel for the appellant in support”. of

the appeal relied on a judgment of the I*ica~fi3_”§3lie~~.Vv’

Supreme Court in mm: RAM Vs. Slfiil-IRA,l§7$:;’

ACJ 534). In my opinion, the

applicable to the facts of the zff

liability of the appellant-i1i;9_§i;*?c;I*
determined as per thcfzp “of _ Ewlotor
Vehicles Act namely, filié jict, 1988. No
substantial qufastjop of d~.;*§pimHmfion to
admit the appgalf igclismissed. The
Court shan be
” ‘ the Commissioner for

Work1nen’§ Bagalkot for disbursal in

~” v §§?ithAA1aw…… v

Stif-

fudge