IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 04:!» DAY OF NOVEMBERTZMQE: . PRESENT THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE THE HON'BLE MISCELLANEOUS ,.-F.IRSTTzfl':P_EALe. No.fl52e7'/£2007 BETWEEN: The Divisional Managcgr , ~ : The Oriental E__i1sL_§;r'ance Tcjompany V Linfited, Saraswath1p"ura:iT~-,v-*Mys'oV:=e."~~. __ Through its .,Regi:;na1' orfice .. " ' No.44--45;~eeI,e0'T.ShVCé; ping» Comp' ex,' Residency Road. Qr'ess;, _ _' Banga1ore=56o T ET By Its Regmnal Managef " ...APPELLANT V (By "S:;'ri."';:'5T;.S.Ur;i'e'~s.=V.,fT?v Ada} ' #- ..:o" ' .. _ "(/0 late "fifiallu, Aged "a}3out 26 years, ." Kumexi" Manukurnar, vs,/%_c; late Mallu, 'Aged about 11 years, " " Kumar Ravi Kumar. S/0 late Mallu, Aged about 9 years, Mysore, dated 13.12.2006 in WCA/CR-15/2006/~-EC is called in question in this appeal by the Company. 2. The appe1lant--Ins1:xran_eey. 3 questioning the quantum of-compensation';'awarded by the Commissioner and not:"it,s -Iiabilityn '1_'lne only question raised by th'e...V:app'elliéinVt" us is whether the income of the deceasved'itak;en' Commissioner at the rate of «-_ per rrionth isexcessive or not'? thatwllthe deceased Mallu was working'-as-at loadei'._'larI.:cl'~t1n--loader in a tractorwtrailer bearing registijation N'o.vK;A--10 'T-555 8.: 556, which was by the respondent No.6 in this appeal. Mallu
iion:y;’2s.r4oe 2L~3o6 while discharging his duties as a
loader a.ri.r’1:1′..iih~«loader under the 613* respondent on
‘acpcount-oi’ rash and negligent driving of the driver of the
The deceased Mailu was aged about 30 years at
time of accident and according to the claimants, he
dwas getting a salary of Rs/L000/– per month and in
addition to that, he was also getting a sum of Rs.50/– as
H5/_
batta. The income of the deceased was denied by the
appellant–Insurance Company.
4». The Commissioner considering tli-e.-efvidene-e left ”= V
in by the parties came to the conclu_.,ailo3nl4’th.at aft
a loader and un–loader who»’is.___a cooiie” on the é:ia.teHoi3′ the -. V ‘
accident could not be less month
and accordingly, he of Rs.4, 15,960/~
with interest at,_lV2% of accident tiil
the date is called on
question in this ti.ppea:l;’~ ”
of the appellant’s Counsel
is that thel”inco»mie Ca’ loader and un–loader in the
“V”«-.tractor sonthe Cdate’ of the accident could not be
fierivlrgfionth and therefore, the Commissioner
has ._con1mitt.ed an error in awarding the above said
‘compensation. He also contends that awarding interest
‘thejlrate of 12% p.a. is contrary to the judgment of the
Court rendered in the case of Oriental Insurance
«co. Ltd., vs. Mohd.Nasir & others (2009 AIR sew 371 7).
«(L
~52.
In the circumstances, he requests the Court to allvow the
appeal.
6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the »respondents ”
submits that both the gronnd..s4elA.fj.a1-5..
According to him, the income’ of aflloader as on
the date of accident could lessllthan’V’l32sl;?.OO–250
per day and since tinder the
Gun respondent on a per
month and Commissioner
has “»Rsl4,000/- as income
per molath, that awarding interest is
also in ac-<:ordan'c_el"the W.C.Act. Therefore, he
requeeistls the Cou.rttoAdismiss the appeal.
heard the learned Counsel for the
to consider the following points in this
_. ' « _ uapxpeal; " – Cl'
C * Whether the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Commissioner is on
the higher side'?
WL”
(ii) ‘Whether the interest awarded by the.__
Commissioner is also on the
side?
8. So far as the first point
see any reason to interfere with the order passed: the
Commissioner, since the has
been fixed at Rs. 130/ {per the Corrirriissioner
has taken the income o_f_~ per
month, the on higher side.
In the has to be held
aga1’ns:f§;l the . , _.
9. far second point is concerned,
awa_ré!.ing’ iritere’s’t=at..~l2% p.a. by the Commissioner is
held -to ‘bC’EXC:CS’SiV€. Following the judgment of the Apex
Courtl lipon by the learned Counsel for the
‘v,appellant’,t. we have to reduce the interest awarded by
A “:ti1eVCemrr1issioner. Accordingly, we have to allow this
..__”V””apV’h11_:)eal in part.
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part.
The quantum of compensation awarded by the
$9