The New India Assurance Co Ltd vs Raja on 30 September, 2010

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE "»T.

DATES "mzs THE 30*" DAY OF SEPTEMBER,   u 

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE  "   é  7

AND  .
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTIC4E.Vji3.MANOIJxAI§ 
MFA.NO.76V8?$."O_F  rwcj'¢ 

BETWEEN:

The New India As:§ura'nc}3"    A

Divisional Office N0,V1Ii.:._,'   '

No.47, 2" floQ'1*fG'0pa1  _

Bazzar Street}, Yeshwa"nthpur;"~»  A '  ., '

Bangalore--22,  . -- V     

Reptd by its COflE1tjtL1ted Aitomhy  APPELLANT

(By Sri. D.S_{ S"ridh 3,1", 'Ad.:§§ca::s)

S/0.P«apann_a;..-- A
 * Aged 22 ygars.
~1'Rz=:siden.t-(.>i Kucuu Village,
 ' Bofnrnanahalii Post,
 jAr1e}9a_].r'Ta1uk,

  _ '~««'Bai§1ga1ore--56O O68.

/$~/



2. Muthurayappa,

Father's name not known

to the appeilant,

Major,

R/of J akahnadagi,

Post Balakuntana Village,   
Nandi Hobli, 
Chikkaballapur Taluk,

K0331" District.     

(By Sri.Suresh.M.Latur, Advocate   '

MFA filed U/s. .'.30[:U ithe  against the
Judgment dated:    'in-VV'idWCA/NFC/CR-
40/2005 on the file  5: Commissioner for
workmen compens';é;t§:en:;1 Bangalore, awarding
c0mpensati0ri__0f._"together with interest @ 12%
p.21. ' ' '

hg_1vingV"'bee.r:'heard and reserved and coming

on for pr0n=QunC«en2ei1t_0f Judgement this day, BJVIANOHAR

 de1iverkl;de«th'e"ibuc4§xri§t1g:

£~



accident, the claimant sustained injuries to his body.

Immediately he was shifted to Bowring Lady Curzon 

for treatment and his left leg has been  V'

Rajanakunte Police have also registereda-.cas:e  

driver of the said lorry in Crime No.   

has contended that he was getting alsalatyhof
and Rs.50/-- per day as batt-a..and,t1e  abo1jt"20l years.
Since, the vehicle is covered it by  sought for

compensation from 1_I:f1t':i_SV(f2C()1'i(3l responder;-t:I.nsurer.

3. Pursuant  Commissioner for
Workmen's  of the vehicle remained
exparte. The  filed objections
denying  in the claim petition and also

contended. 'tit-.i:s"~--for the claimant to prove that he was a

I;».yvorkznanx"tinderu.thep'g::.second respondent. Further contended

that -in  "accident, one Manjunath also died and his

legal'ijrepresenltatives have also filed a claim petition

an  contending that he was working as a cieaner of

/5N



the said vehicle. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for___any

compensation. However, admitted that the said 

covered by insurance and sought for dismissal  "

petition as against the second respondent»i»n.surer.itit  '4 

4. On the basis of the p1ead--in'gs oi"  the

Commissioner for Workr,.nen's ,-"--'C.ompe_nsatioiiA. V/'framed

necessary issues.

5. in order to    examined
himseif as P.W.1   doictiments as EXP. 1 to
Ex.P.7 8: R7  the Doctor who has treated
him as P.W.2    documents as Ex.P.8 to
   insurer has not examined any

witnesses... _ iioweveix. the Insurer has cross--examined P.W.1

   it 

'  in  evidence has stated that he was Working as

the offending vehicle. He has stated that on

/5/



l6--7--2005, after loading the sand to the said lorry and while

proceeding towards Bangalore from Doddaballapur, 

lorry met with an accident, due to the rash and

driving of the lorry by its driver and he isupstained"'i11juri_e.s.7..

Since. he is a Workman under the Worl;;rnen"s Compensation:"

Act, he is entitled for compensatioi~1..p illlie  this
evidence has deposed that due top..the-lithe claimant
has suffered injuries to his left  his
left leg has to be  on
27-62006, the " there is swelling and
tenderness 'left lower limb and left
hip region.   without crutches or
anybody's help.  the treatment for more than
7%.:-4"¢l'aysA_ _thelHD"oc'tor has assessed the disability of

80%i'theVAfunctionaladisability is assessed as 100%, in View of

  amputation  left leg. He cannot Work as a coolie.

  the basis of the evidence let in by the parties, the

 for Workmen's Compensation held that the

W



7
claimant is a Workman within the meaning of Workrnens
Compensation Act and awarded compensation taking into

consideration the age and saiary drawn by the ciaimantpas

Rs.3,000/-- pm. Taking 60% of the salary V.

relevant factor, the Commissioner has awarded cor'npen'sVation-- 

of R.s.3,81,222/~ (1800 x 211.79) and azsa awarded;interestiwatn'.

the rate of 12% p.a. from the date ofelaini. 'petitions.  " ' V
8. The appellant being aggrievedby the  by
the Commissioner for Wor1§'1'nen'shndtjornperisationqi preferred

this appeal.

9. Sri.D.S.S-ririhar,-- : appearing for the
appellant contend"ed_v'that tiviedeompensation awarded by the
Cornniissionerri'-iris"i-epontrarfto the Workmen's Compensation

Act.   the:vi_jDoetor has deposed in his cross-

 iexamination  claimant has suffered disability of 80%,

 has taken the disability at 100% and

 _'awarsd'e.d'eonipensation, which is contrary to law. Further, he

/9



aiso contended that the rate of interest at 12% p.a. awarded

by the Commissioner is aiso contrary to the law laid 

the Hon'b1e Supreme Court.

10. On the other hand, Sn'.Suresh 'learned 

appearing for the first responder:n"t..p cohntertidedi,  the
Commissioner, taking into the""'funetiona1
disability of the claimant andflawlso  factor
has awarded just   the same does
not require any  Court and sought
for dismissal {of  '   i I

11. We have   through the arguments

addressedthe Iearriedcoiinsel for the parties, perused the

awards   _ the Commissioner for Workmen's

 _Compensation'Van"d  oral and documentary evidence of the

'p_arti'es .

Aw



12. The only point that arises for consideration in ___this

appeal is as to whether the compensation awarded 

Commissioner is in accordance with the  '

Compensation Act?   

13. It is not in dispute that v'd.n"e~,_Mto the ' "that
occurred on 16»? -2005 at  the claimant
has sustained injuries. The i5oli_c'e  a_i;soV"_:e'gistered a case

against the driver   the FIR, the
claimant is ShOVV€'riH  and he was
Working as  IV-flence, it is clear that
the claimant  a  loriy which belongs to
the second_1fes}ao'ndentV'VheAiiein':'and the accident has taken

place' the icours'e"o'f"emp1oyment and he is entitled to

seek"cton;pensation' izlnder the Workmen's Compensation Act.

jifi'-liiough   has claimed that he is aged about 20

 on date of accident, the Doctor in his medical

 reieariy mentioned the age of the claimant as 28

A"



E0

years. Further, the claimant has contended that the second

respondent was paying a salary of Rs.3.000/-- 

Rs.50/--~ per day as batta, the Commissioner  V'

consideration 60% of the salary of Rs..<3;0-Q0/~-lg' it

compensation by applying the relevant  it

14. The Doctor in his evidence has  to the
injuries to the left leg and  'gangrene, his
left leg had to be  stated that on
clinical examination'::.'on" that there was
swelling and  leg and the hip
region and  or any other person,
he cannot Astandlélor hoilgh the Doctor has assessed
the 80%, the functional disability was

assessedypat' x}  cannot do the work of a coolie. The

 lcletimantlbeingaiitililliterate person, except the coolie work, he

"c.'a:14:iot do anygother work. Hence, the compensation awarded

V   the --_CloIr_itnissioner taking into consideration the functional

XM



disability of 100% is in accordance with law. There  no

infirmity or illegality in the award passed by

Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation  V'

accordance with the Workmen's Compensation ;'Act.4"   i V'  

15. Further, the contention of   the
appellant that the rate of in;terestp..aVu:aifdedi.at  pfa. from
the date of claim petition is  reported
in 2009 AIR scw,    ORIENTAL
INSURANCE   MOHD. NASIR AND
OTHERS  "1;'ne"'Hon'ble Supreme Court
has clearly held that   entitled for the interest at
the rate of V7_.v5%'C'pi.a:; ftornA"the--"CCVdate of claini petition till the
da_te"o.f pavs_siingT.:ttieA.avstardand thereafter 12% p.a. till the date

of deposit;_ 'I-tIen.ce»,4"pass the following:

ORDER

filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The

V”‘»C.’e.ompene-Zation awarded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s

/iw

Compensation is confirmed. However, the claimant is entitled

for the interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of_

petition till the date of passing the award and thereafter” ~

p.a. till the date of deposit.

The amount in deposit if any, before this7

transferred to the Commissioner for ‘Wor};:rnen’s
Compensation, Bangalore.