IN THE HIGH comm" OF*KA_RNAT'AJ?<A
DATED THIS THE
THE HOWBLE MR. JusI1.éf0E:w.A.;H:f.,yEfw§1'§VpALA GOWDA
MISCELLA.N3.F?fi4C')ét;§;'__.FI.FiST€ OF 20o7(wc)
BETWEEI€\i~:.V. 0' ' V'
The I2;ationéI'0v0I_ns.gEa0nc'e0'Co: Lt.d.,
is' Fi0'o_r,'Mu'ddapxba €.om.p4iex,
Vivekaha.'nd0eRoa.d,""~ ,
Tumkur. = V
By 3:5' E3angai'ore"Regi'onal Office,
11 "F!oo"rA;' M'.G_,_Road,
' ;Ban.ga!.o0re_"--» 0560001.
.R€_DFe's.e'n.tedf'by' its
Regional 'Mfgniager. Appellant
(By sgri':-LPB Raju, Adv.)
' Sri Jagadeesh,
' = ~.---S/0 Srfi Beiléyappa,
Aged about 26 years!
Occ: Loader and Unfoader,
R/0 Shanthinagar,
Chaifakere,
Chitradurga District.
Sr; T S Rajkumar,
S/0 Sr? T R Sadashivaiah;
Major in age,
_ y 3
€312,309/~ with interest at 12% pa. after
the date of award. Feeling aggrieved;
Company has filed this appeal.
2. The 2" respond'er;«t{emVp'i~oyer/assureidwhas
been served with the notice,___l:"H.a_vinVg the records,
since the appellant'---...V:l':as'é._ ceilvvec'tedDpremium for one
employee and there Vberingfal'cio'y.e'ra'ge""oflithe vehicle, it is
unnecessarytofiissue "notice to the respondent. Notice
to respond*~en:t- lilo.2 yéxith.
“Sri i* ar.ned counsel appearing for the
appeliant”con’tendeo–._that, the claimant sustained fracture
of:g_j”‘fer§:iui*..y_bone”a–n–d” other injuries and the doctor who
:y’tii.:m’*–..has taken the disability at 30% and has
determ_ineii_ the compensation amount payable. According
to th~e”l’earned counsel, the Commissioner is not justified in
.hlo’l”sd.ing that the risk of the claimant is covered by the
policy.
E
._ . 5
wouid cieariy establish the joral reiationAs.h_ipVV”‘of.the
employee and the employer between himself a.n’«:.tVthet’
respondent. The age of the ci.airn”ar:t_ well’:”e.sta’bli’shed i
from the evidence on record i.e.,”h__e”–b_eing
as on the date of accident. injur’i-es ‘e-ujetaailnewdw can be
found from Ex.P3,V-the mle’di’cVai_4’r’e.;;’ordH’oi” the District
hospital. Dr.K.V.\fe’nlV<at'esi;.vines_.d_e*noS'e'd and has stated
about the the partial
permanent difficulty in functioning. In
the permanent disability
and resultant': capacity. the Commissioner
hasrightlysh'elVdV'V.tha,t,"t'he compensation has to be paid.
T.i'jére;_._.i's ._correctiv—a-pipreciation of evidence to assess the
' .-iuncti"o4na¥.'disability and loss of earning capacity.
has admitted the issue of policy to the
.vVe.hicl'e-' in question in favour of the 2" respondent/insured.
""~V_VAceording to him, no premium was collected for
—-loader/unloader and hence, there was no coverage in
%
E
6
respect of the Coolie. Insurance policy has Ab.e_enV”‘rn’arKed
as Ex,R1. The policy was current as on M
8. I have perused E><.R1:;._ Itrashows-.th'at"therearis
payment of 325/~ being W(I,_Vto an'Vemploy%e.ev.V.._jlhe VAt_t*
provides for compulsory coverage to the 'd«-.ri_\/erg V?
9. In View of .ApwVrer_nium of ?25/- to
cover the to be necessarily
held or a loader. The claim
madeon’ th..e’-salidlhjacclifdent being only the claim
of the Commissioner is justified
in directing “the’V-.alp-.pe’l~~iant to deposit the compensation
dieterm’lri’ed«.” The question raised by Sri Raju has
i the appellant since E><.R1, the insurance
.'po'l'ice_.ClVe.as':iy shows that, there is coverage to an
emp~!oyee.
10. The other questions raised in the appeal memo
“being not substantial questions of law and the only
V /,5
err’
/,
question raised and considered supra beiQg__’4’d,évs§V§d””pf
merit, the appeai fails.
In the result, the appeai ‘is :’Th:é :éz~m’b1:::nt
in deposit be transferr::fd’a_to the C0f?JfT~g.§.ss%.Q.ner fssr’
necessary action,
KS}!/\:v” “”” .