INIEHEHKHICOURT(H?KARNAIAKA.BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1S'r DAY 01+' DECEMBER 200-9Tff--._:"'-L,A
BEFORE
THE HONBLE ma..JUs'rIcE_;sLII3;~1A.:3i«i BA;Di""
M.F.A. No. 14429/ 2:oUi?f{v.'x:
M.F.A. Nos. 14427 /200132. V1443-0 _/2007 "we-V)
IN MFA No.14429 2007
Bmwmn:
THE NEW INDLA AS_SURANCF§ k
KOLLAPUR BFJXNQEI, M;AI*L%\F{AS}£TRFx~--THROUGH
BANGALoREAREcIoNA:._;QFL1?1c--E No _2--B
UNITY BU1LD1(3Ns EKALLNGA RAO
ROAD, [M.I.SSIO_N 560 027
REP. BY D's'R£<::;1o:qAL,¢1v'LANAGDR APPELLANT
[By M/vs. MS <31 ASSTS, ADVS. )
ANI), ;
A
»_ S/O$§flflM%NNSHERH?,MAJOR
fiR#3AHAMADNAGARKKHflELA
' CHENQ$¥dANAGARA
2 " ABDUL KHALEEL
" 3/?~o ABDUL GAFOOR, MAJOR
R/O GALIPURA ROAD
GALIPURA VILLAGE
CHAMARAJANAGARA. RESPONDENTS
” (BY SMT: KAVITHA H C, ADV. FOR R1, R2 SERVED)
l\)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WC ___ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT DATED: 30.9.2007 PASSED
IN WCA.NO. 115/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR
COMPENSATION. CI-IAIVIARAJANAGARA, -I
COMPENSATION OF RS. 1.01.871/– @~
12% P.A.
IN MFA No. ].4427/2007
BETWEEN :
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE_CO_’M_PAl\IY ”
KOLLAPUR BRANCH, MAHARASIélTfy’A.C”TI~iROUGH
BANGALORE REGIONAL OFFICE) }’\TO;.2..-B». _
UNITY BUILDIGNS ANNEXE, p.;’KAL1=:\:GAi’;2A;O
ROAD, (M1ss1ON’-ROAD)”; “‘BANGAL=ORE–5é30 02’?
REP. BY ITS MANAOER–.”~ ‘V
‘V ‘ .. ….APPELLANT
(BY & ASSTS, ADV. )
ANDZE, -‘ I I I A I
1 MUSHE}ER_}°AS}{A.’SV
I , S/O ‘MALLIOK “SAB,MAJOR
R/O AHA1vLAr)NAIARMOHALLA
‘ ARA
A. VVABBUL iwfl-IALEEL
~ S/O.__ABDUL GAFOOR, MAJOR
R/O —-§:}ALIPURA ROAD
GALIPURA VILLAGE
” OBAMARAJANAOARA
RESPONDEZNTS
[BY SMT. H C KAVITHA, ADV. FOR R1
3 R2 —- SERVED]
U.)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C_. ACT
AGAINST THE’ JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2007 PASSED
IN wCA.1IS/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE.$”LAB()UR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR …~.x.IIOI?§KIv.r,EN
COMPENSATION, CHAMAJARANAGAR DI’STEI:’:T,
CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING A COI\/II?I«:I~ISI=;I’IOI\I OF
RS. } ,84,-454/~ WITH INTEREST @»..E .20’/0 P_;A. V’ T’
IN MFA No. 14430/2007
BETWEEN:
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE. C’O_I\/i}?ANY
KOLLAFUR BRANCHI,’__MAIU§RASi{ffRA..’
THROUGH BANGALOREI2EGI0NAL,jOFFICE
NO.2–B, UNITY BUILDINGS ANNEXE I ‘
RKALINGA ROAD, {M.ISS’IOjN ROAD’)
BANGALORE–}:36Q’02’7 . ‘ ”
REP. BY MANAG’ER .
..AFPELLANT
[BY es: ASSTS, ADVS. I
AND 4. V ‘ ” T
I _ I , ZIAULLA SFIEI'<.IFF
S/O SHERIFF
' ;AGED 30
_ R'/.0. NAGAR MOHALLA
.,CHANLAf§AJANAGARA
T AE3'D':__rIj KHALEEL
S/O "ABDUL GAFOOR, MAJOR
" REO GALIFURA ROAD
GALIPURA VILLAGE
CHAMARAJANAGARA RESPONDENTS
"?{BY SMT : KAVITHA H C, ADV. FOR R1
R2~SERVED )
4
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.09.2007 PASSED
IN WCA.117/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN
COMPENSATION, CHAMAJARANAGAR DISTRICT.
CHAMARAJANAGAR, AWARDING A COMPENSATION
OF Rs.1,13,557/– WITH INTEREST @ 12% RA…’ , ‘I
THESE MFAS. COMING ON FOR THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED.Ti”{»E yEcp4LL[OW;IeNG::1’IA
JUDGM§NTg7liX””
These three appeal’S._V:are filed’ bylltheslnsujraneeeit
Company questioning thevyjuvrigment ani:l=award passed
in WCA NOS. 115, 1lt6″aI’Ic’i dated 30.09.2007
on the file4.tof_ the for Workmen’S
Com}3_enSatio’i1..”‘V- _y A’ l * _ lé Chamaraj an agar District,
Chamarajaii agarf. I’ .
Vv ‘Ilhe’.elai:nants in all these claim petitions
‘;al}ege._V4V’th’at””they suffered injuries while they were
.’t.rayellin’éji’irfthe lorry bearing registration No. CAS 3832
and ~. fiirther allege that they were working as Cleaner,
.(iriyer and loader. In regard to the injuries Suffered in
lithe course of employrnent. they filed Claim petitions
and employees between Respondent No.1 and the
claimants. No doubt, there is a discrepancy-.:.in:’*the
policy in mentioning the name of the
vehicle, but it is not in dispute d
is insured and in respect of thed”pAoi~i.cyu
existence as on the datevdoiffithe frorn
this, the insurer has,.i’ssued” the”oWner of the
vehicle as per Ex.RIé’ Under
these circurnsétaricestpwith that the vehicle
is not So far as the
is concerned. the
«the evidence of the Doctor, on
consideration the entire oral and documentary
– eViden”oe,”i*..phas Vaiisfarded compensation is the pure
and it does not call for interference by
this it In so far as the relationship is concerned,
ypthereishno dispute, as the employer being a party’ before
trial has not disputed the same. Under these
(9%
circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration by this Court.
6} In View of the above discussions:ijthe~i.:appea1sV.
fail and accordingly stand dismisseidczfiv
The amount in deposit-.befo1V’e.vt,}iisV Cotirt
to be transferred to the Con’njnissionei’«–.for Workmen’s
Compensation, V District,
Chamarajanagar. V
KGR*