IN THE HIGH comm 0;? KARNATAKA CIRCUIT 1j8i:;s*;§:z,a:
AT DHARWAD 1.
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY 09' Auc§Us*:§, '2o_{:V$AF-'% A'
BEFORE
THE: HOWBLE MRS. JUSFEE.$EA€§A.I§AT¥iN'2i"._: 'i ._
M.P'.A.N(}.'
BETWEEN: ' M
'mg NEW INDIA 'A33U'R5;Nvc:E'c:j0M»9AN¥ LIMITED
DAVANGERE DQ1,1':'S,VR§«:G§0Nm,' f§}i3fPICE,
N02-B;,,L:jmf1fY E?-UILIf}i1'~§(} A N.NEX§}.,
1:>m<;AL11<::;GA RAG =3R{'}A£i',i3fiNGALORE-2'?,
RE§";'f3Y..__I'i'-SéfDEl?1IT¥..3'V§ANAGER,
SRLC.:<;1.§31UBmMzx;tzY;;...»-- " "
."APPELLANT
(By S33; ?{.R.K§fF;{fEL'£fR';».RSV. FOR SR}. 13 <2 SEETHARAMA
RA0,Amf.) _ ,
_ SR1 LENGARAJU
_ ; PSIAGAPPA BUSHETTY
Aefizmgzzi YEARS,
_RjA'_?"CHIKKERUR,
HEREKERUR TALUK,
~. HAVERI DIS¥'RiC'¥'.
n.RESPONDENT
;(By Sfi PiiCHAPPARADAHALUE§fl?L ABVL FGR
T SRLNiViHREMATH,ADVJ
..g..
THIS IVIFA FILED U/S 39(1) OF W13. ACT A-GAiNS'”£’ mt:
JUDGMENT DATED 17.012007 PASSED IN
wCA:NF;E30/2005 ON THE F’§L£E 01:’ THE LABOUR OFFICER
Arm COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN COMPENSATION,
HAVERI nlsmicr, HAVERI, AWARDING A COMPEE*3_SATiON
op f~?S.:,G1,349/~ WITH INTERESF 12% RA.
This MFA coming cm for ADMESSION c_s.A11:–.
court tielivczred the following:
JUnGM®Ki jc V
Though this matter admiésifivng
consent of boih the is éisposeci of
finally.
2, ‘by tha Insurance Compaxly
challengmgéé . passsd by the Workmenk
satiori . vfilommisaioner, Haveri District in
» VjV’av;:rx.;,f4§3:5.iQ’;2_006 dated 1?’.7.200?.
‘éxndisputed facts of the case am that on 2.7.2605
V» * :;¥_:’ aiiéut 9.30 3.111 the respondent herein working as a
‘ ‘._ c’:’:’ie’é_ner in respect of iorry bearing No.KA–14/5346 S¥1SfiaiI3.{td
injuxtiss on account of the accidezixt that occurred during the
course of employment when he was travelling in the said
5
.3-
19113? fmm Belgaum to Dhazwad by caryging mifig
instxuction of the fixst respondent and when fifi: ~
approached near Hulikatti cross m_’3.~N,_H.4,
said lorry drove the same in a rash am’ négiigciit
that it hit against another 10rf§f”$3:;aIi1;§§gv- N0. V1.23′-’13 as V
result of which the msfiponden: §:;;§:ai;;eé’iuj:u;¥;es his left
hanc} and a portion ‘finger was cut OE
Contending that he <«:$f capacity on
account sf "-:;*a.1:f«i?::1'e¢:1 by him as 21
result 'Qf 1t1?x§:. the course of the
emp}@C.:i.s ‘I_
6. The respondent; claimant ¢%>{éfi1in,ed* és3?’W;»1. V
and Drlfmanath as PW.:2 and
while the respondents didV»£::§L5i:V.. V_le-1: ii; .__az13{ Ve:§ri’d~.é:V1’i{:t*:. Th€:’
Workmetnfs Compansgtion on the
materiais on meant}, Rs. 1,01,349/ ~
with interast afg. 1 dais of one
menth afggr § §§§:’:%;¥ec1 on 2.7.2035 mi}:
séiitriw award flit”: insurance
comp3¢:n}*_ T’}:31¢c1_ fl1is’ f
7. 5′ I _h3,\?”{i.V2 txfiatfi S1;i.N:R;Kuppclur for S~}:’i.B.C.S_6€:th8;t’aIIl8.”
Ego!’ for the appellant] ixxszxmnce company
for Sri.M.V,HiI*ama£h for
fly; respontieiit.
” It is submit1;ed- on behalf ef fhe appellamz that the
Workmefls Cammissioner erred in awaxding comyensation
to an extent of Rs.1,,,G 1,349] – by taking the percentage of
XV
/, .
‘ ‘ . Co’mij1iis3io1a.¢r.
.. 5-
loss of ear11i:1g capacity to be 25% Without rmficixzg E116: fact
that 13:15 :in§ury sustained by the ciajmant was a scheduleé
injury, and tkervzfom, the Workme:r1’s Compenggafion
Commimioner ought is have determined the 33ercc:3i:ag€~V.of
103$ 03′? earning Capacity s1:r*i<':tiy in farms of th_e– .
the Wc;3rkme11's Compensation Act ermd upefi " "
the: evidence of PW,2–I)r.Umanath.:=__V
awarding :31' infxzrest at 12% with €fi.€{i?_f)C'k)111 011$' L.
the date of accident is ft: flxfi'-j1_Vié§m§:;t of the
Supreme Court in tbs' gjégsfi o'fVC0mpa11y
Limiter} Vs."AM=;.5_=;:~.ag££. as smother, 2007(2) T.A.C. 3 (SC)
and he'Atheirtfore,_.fE£§'a£:V$*$§"this court to modify the quantum
Elf cg-¥v1pens:éi'tig7§n' "by the Workmezfs Compensaticm
Pm'. it is submitted an behalf cf the respondent,
suppoffifig the award of the Workmezffls Compensation
" Qzyfiimissiener that the medical evidence in this case was
fiigzai them was 25% disability and t}.1erefore, the:
Commissioner was right in Considefing the same as
V
-3-
in the iI1sta11t.case is a schaduled injury mentionesi
of Schedule E, entry No.27 where it says ttiizt V’
amputation to whoie sf lsff iI1€iex;fi:r3.gg3r, » 1
loss 0f earning capacity. Therégfb-:’é, _ ” Wbf1:3fi’€11’s
Compeitmafion C0mmissio1}é_:t”–~ ,ugi1t~- to vhafié }:i23,1§)§vtx1 t};w.,é: *
Schedule 13;} th& Act in
determining the 103$ ‘ instead of relying
upon the met:1ir:ai €Vi:df;:’.;’;€§:;~ §.t;ifi1es$ of fingars
and tend§;:1i:q;as;{§::_'(§+;§erV::ig’1e€ ua11::«c:0ncerned, the same:
weal; ‘j;<;; :i§e£§xfiéihe§;tV disabi}ity for which 1:116
(3{)i3Li;v1#;¥€I]."$"~#,'L33.A'{.;VifV£):";V.E;. he as it is a tempormy
discofixffiffis Q circumstances, the Workmenfs
Crgmpsnséitian' 'fiécniiniésioner ought to have calculated the
" .V V'£:':},{%.zi4ps rounded of to Rs.56,”?55/– by taking the
mo”:1m1y salary of the mspondcnt to be Rs.300Q/- age to he:
a _ years, aatzd approgriate factor at 225.22 (f>’0°/e X 3000 X
225.22 x :4;1oo3.
12. As far as awarding of interrzzst is cencemcd, it :i§;’–..Saen
that intemsi; at the rate of 12°/o p.a is awavdttd,
fmm 2.8.2605 one month after the accicleut V’
on 237.2005 whereas the case was
interest has to be awarded with
the date of adjudication of 1′;h_¢ * V L’
it fell due. However, the iflj11}C7}?. being a
scheduled injury, no é§.dVju.:iicat1%_(>:2″ .§§ss¢ssment “on the
percentage of lossv of ‘fequircd as the
same was pt.e~dé§fc:n1ihed:. uin _£i”3:c-:V scliédule to Workmenfs
s’i’]§€:’3*€;ffore, has {(3 be with effect
from (:>xj;:~;€” date of the accident and the
W.C.Comm§$siGncVrv–,hé:s” figfifly oxdemd so.
V 1 3″. _ I53Q:f”t1i’E:éif0I€$3§d reasons, the appeal is aiiowed in part
Withbut dfder as to Costs.
” this stage, it is submitted that the entire
‘AA<;<$:i;tiA;A)ensa1350n has been deposited before, this court. The
x éxffica is dirccted to reitrase the compensation due to the
?/
-10-
respondent along with praporfionattz intercst and
balance amount to ‘£1115: appellant.
KMSI KVR*