IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5"' DAY OF' JANUARY 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE C R
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAI.»89.Q8/2{oAo7AAA{'»3}?C}AAA' AA
Between:
The National Insurance Co. Ltd.;Arx*«..
Sriram Site Office 2A,
Prakash Road.
'1' Nagar, Chennai.
By its Bangalore Regional
Shubharam Complex, . V
2nd Floor, .144 M G Road, . Af
Bangalore 560 O(_).1<,n_
Represented by_i1A:$ 1 __
Regional Mam-:lAge1';"---- . A' 'A A 'A
(By S1'i.P.B;'Raj«uAA,A -- A
And:
1.
Sri.P.'}?.C%eo1"AAge..,AA * -
Aged-A~r:about 44 yAe'ars__ ____ H ,
A AA / o~--late.A":E'-r1'"Joseph
»R/o _Pla,sheril House
A L. ._IIAi1:hiA1pa_n(li "PA0é=.t
Nelaidi Vill.A'age';: "
Pu Eooorrx .'I'_a_i?.ik
Dakshina Kannada District
:~3:*:L,l{ Nanjappa
_ 2 3/0 AS:'i Kariya
_ AI'..'.Ea}o'ri11 age
No.}_170/43,
Q/"A
AOfAfA_7lC.e,A'.L AA
.. Appellant
Dr Rajkurnar Road
Prakash Nagar
Bangalore. .. Respondents
(Sr: P Karunakar, Advocate for Respondent No.1,
Notice to Respondent No.2 dispensed with)
****
This appeal is filed under Section Act it
against the Judgment and Order dated 30.4…2’0O?7 –p_asse_din
WCA/SR No.42/05 (NF) on the file of i1:_feiI;ab’iour”Oiifieeri-.Si?i_:
Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, DK_’jSt1b~I)iV;.2′;.
Mangalore, awarding a compen-station of-Rs.IV,26,389/.¢_with
1nterest@12%P.A.
This appeal coming on for adnii.s:sioVnr.this day; the court
delivered the following: ‘ .. 2. u
This is under Section
30(1) of .i}’I€’ Act against the
Judgmentignd ofjdgf-~..agt¢tae~a.._:§o:_’4Q2007 passed in WCA/SR
No.42/05{NFV}V'”<~.'2CiIIi. of the Labour Officer 8:
Commissioner_ for""–VWo'r1£rnen's Compensation, Dakshina
d'K_vannadVa, Mangalore awarding compensation of
'/'é"_'»'.is2it1.iVi.nterest at the rate of 12% Per Annum.
Invited to wound certificate. Even the wound certificate
indicates that he has sustained the following injuries:
(1) Lacerated wound of 3 cm X 0.5 cm bonecleep, ever
eyebrow.
(2) Lacerated wound, 1.5 cm X 0.3 Cm, over left It
(3) Lacerated wound, 3 cm X 2 cm,1:.Jover”1’igl1_t ‘sic:le
back, 2 cm away from rnidline and1_2£~f3 em belowrvthe
shoulder with underlying haematoma with fore.;gh’ b’odi;es’;
in the form of glass pieces.
At the earliest point of time, the.wau’ncl”~relating’to egrebrow
was also mentioned in the Well as in the
discharge summaryg. He ‘has lost his
eyesight and . “lithe Workmensp
Compensation:A.et;«\i’:}r_ of one eye without
complication, of earning capacity. Therefore,
he submits Athatttasttliettélhasgitexamined PW3 who treated the
gvclaimantt with regargcltto the injuries and PW3 being an
‘Who treated the injured and opined that the
Vitféisability to the extent of 40%, eventhough
the compensairion is less, the insurance company has
i’ ” ‘T 1 preferred tltieihappeal.
if/’
10. PW3 — Dr Dinakar Nayak is the Opthalmologist of
Government Venlock Hospital, Mangalore. He has stated in
his evidence that on 4.5.2006 he examined one person and
found that his left eye vision had been completely impaired.
Even the right eye was also weak. His left eye
been impaired due to piercing of foreign object_glto._his”~eyc.3
Ex.P.3 indicates that there is an injury on’thelh_oned.ee–p ovelr
his left eyebrow. He further states tl:at”–he fi:11*nisllied»cvlV
opinion as per Ex.P.5 that petitiorier has got .disAal:=ility: to the
extent of 40%. Though, ‘this Witness cross”ex’amined,
nothing has been elicited to ‘disbeliev’e”hi_s: fexiideiree.
11. ~”‘l”‘l’1e._Avresponden-t/’insurance company has also
examinedVan”indepen¢lent,Doctor as RW2 who states in his
evidence thatlhe had-_eXa_nii.ned George on 1.4.2005 and he
— has stwlzed that the’*c.].a__i_r_nant George has sustained following
V’i.1_)jL1ries; ‘
[Ill cm x 0.5 cm incized wound
[2] Laceratved wound on left shoulder 1.5 cm x 0.3 cm
(3) Lacerated “wound 3 cm x 2 cm over right side of the back.
2 cm” away from midline and 23cm below the shoulder
‘V with underlying haemotoma with foreign bodies in the
_ of glass pieces.
if
who is an Opthalmologist of Government Venlock Hospital,
Mangalore wherein he has stated in his evidence that the
claimant has sustained bonedeep injury over the left eyebrow
and he has lost his vision. Therefore, he opined that
disability to the extent of 40%. The learned CommisVsioncr_l__fo1~:_:lit
Workmen’s Compensation considering the naturerof injuziies
sufferred, has assessed the loss of
Schedule {1} of the Workmen’s Compens-ation Actb’.atlASl.No;ifZl6’i it
indicates loss of Vision of one eye Without coniplicstionviis 30%
loss of earning capacity.” ~..4_The.”d’llea1ned”Commissioner for
Workmen’s Compensation on Acarelful ‘.co11si.deration of the
evidence of the the the discharge
summary and llaiso photographs of the claimant has
assessed loss of,lea.n1i’ng_l:capacity at 30%, which in my
opinion . is proper.’ “Further, the learned Commissioner for
W’orkn”1en’s”i’Compensation relying on the Act has awarded
” also in my opinion is a statutory
compensation:tivirardeci to the injuries sustained by the
claimant.” fieamed counsel for the appellant has failed to
«..poir:1:_b_o’t;t any grounds to interfere with the impugned
‘fix,
10
judgment and order. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
13. In View of the above discussion,
following:
-0 R D E R
{1} Appeal is dismissed.
{2} The amount in deposit shall be”‘t.f:ansfetre’d.V_to’ t-lie
Commissioner for
Mangalore for disbursertieritf V ll % l
{3} The claimant. compensation
amount ini’teflj;.s order.
Sd/-»
JUDGE
bin ‘ V