The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd … vs Prasanna on 15 July, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT Q33' KARNATAKA   

DATED 'THIS THE 15m 'gm; QF    V'

BEFokgf 

THE H{)N'BLE MR. JUs'r1<3§';'%~~ ..B.S§LTENI§fASE§"G0§V'DA"' A

Miscellaneous  Apnea} I§i£;»."'1'£)f?62«' 5:" M15? {WC}

BETWEEN:

T111: O1'ient.a13--II1s,;i1r;::11c§:  L1_;d.=,. V ' 
Having itsi'I*egL3té1'6c3 »Ofifir;é'--at" _   '
Asamii :zo.aci;«N::w DcRhi',*T «--  

And itS"BV&flgé1}OI'(é;'If{'fi§iOaf13} Ciffiite

At 1;c:iSh(}p}jiI1g--«V(_3Gm'p3c:'x,.__ -- '
Resideizcy Read £"j51"'roSs,_.  
BaI1ga1(3r(:+560 {:0 1* ;v:i1}dE11ily
Rcpresentéd by .ii:$. Rcgiohal Manager
T116. _§Hir1dup1:1i*' Qflfice Qf the appellant

 V'  _CGmpa:;.y is now represented by its

   at Bangalom.

 APPELLAN?'

  Raju, Atziw

 N 1331" 

 "ii Hilién,
_  Majici, I}(".3W' aged about 23 yczars
R?/9 D. Hosur, Mad<:h1r Taluk,

T  "fiiiandya District.

 RESPONDENT

(By Sri K.L. Srirfivas, Adv.)
%;"'



Thifi MFA fiied under Section 30(1) of the W9ri§z:1en's
Compensation Act against the orcier dated 3J, f~..,Q:OO7
passed in case N0.WCA/NFC/CR«484/2002 Qn__i.h¢'fi}e:"::;f

the Labour Ofiicer and Commissioner for Wéiiméiafs

Compexzsation, Sub Division»-II, Manéya, "'~awaf_1ding' 

compensation ofRs.1,41,261/~  i'If1tf:1'f:§$f';'(@2    V'

This appea} coming on fevi-'._  

Court, delivered the following: _ A
JUnGMfiHr* 
Though the maf:tt:1;'&'  mféers, with the

consent of 3eam4¢ci,__Co1;fiS€i::'ap'~  ':3   the parties it is

taksn  fer  "  '

2. 3*}-15$   by the Insura11ce Company

   ~__the VV'W§«ompen$ati9n awalfied by the

{?;»<2n"1:r1issii:;1jt:rA'.T'fs3r Workmerfs Compensation, Mandya (for

V V' Sh{)I' £~.. élininmissioncr').

    §I"(:s:r the gurposc ef converfiencc the parties are

  to as they are: referred to in the ciajm petition.

4. Brief facts 9:' the case are as under:



£43

The claimant whfsir: he was Working as.  

with his C0-warker in the 1011'?   E10.  . 

20 20/33?!) bciengng to the 18* i7¢$p0Ii§itéi1§,'flfiE'  "

with an accident and both them :31:s*t}afi:¢d.,.Vinjuries,L'

Thay have filed two J$fC13aI'%.tfiVVV:A.C1_3§131k p€fiti(:)}'A1SAEb€fOI'€ the

Commissioner s<:~':1§1'ng"'<,*t:)§r1;';§3¢3fit$e1i:.ii:st1f...p 'M  _

5. The 1  {if his claim axamimzd
himstiif a_.$.A  who treated him as P"? 2.
He has.'  which are markacl as

E1~;._;P" Ito  4-,   

  _I1'~§$zirance Company after cntermg appearance

ffléd  "'$£at&1:neI1t sf objcctians resisting the claim but

  'x':1wi€}_11<§t.ie;-.1d any CVi(iflITiC-S,

'?, Tha Chmmissioner upan appmciatian of the oral and

dacumentary evidence: an regard has held that the
%,..



ciaimant. has establishefi that he has 

~4-

the: accident occurred in the course . , j;3;:1d'-Lfnmgz '

employment and he is entitieci for:=,co3::1§§€tX1'5atii%;:1;: 4'   AV

.1" ,

8. Learned Counsel for thef;__ Ii-:a§i.1ratit3€= * 

submits aithtmgh the cloctof h#§s~.5ta{¢d.  '

has sustained 45% di*3a.i.Jiiit§V'iO'A   but ha

has not stated the dis.ab:ii=:y   'whoic body and

the lcfsa 'fcif Nevertheless the
Cnmmisfiigfiar haé' ifié: loss of earning capacity at

40% gsontragffgr  "t:'is1§'~.F<.;&i"¢;,l<::11<(:<-': of the doctor and to the

 V A' (§f~t§1e W§;fia'nen'$ Cgempensafion Act.

  'V v"SV§fi31ivas, Ieamad Ceunscal appearillg for flu:

 that the accident is emf the ymr 2002 and

 i;h}:cIa{i;aa:z:'aI1t was working as a loads: in a Remy and his

  taaktgn as Rs.2,£t3{)£)/- by the Commissioner is

w%   ccfitraxy t9 the pfmvision of the Minimum Wages Act.

&'

 



According to him this: czlaimanfs salary ts} 

Rs.3,000/- pm.   

10. Aftsr hearing the leaxiued <:',<)L1;'1:i«c5i ::fi1e '

4

parties p€I'L1Si.'{}g the   

COIi1IIIiSSiOI1<:I' the only uqL1€:$.t1€}Ii Df Lixw which I
have found in this  is  i§};S_Cnmmissioncr is
justificd in aSS_€;':3§i11g,'[3;i€:   at 40%
in the --._%;I3§3gt' cfféfit and assessing the
claiméiz:t's ' :+2t "*R:s';;2;6i)O/- 13.111. cnntraty to the

proxrisionsggsf  Wages Act.

  for the claimants submits that the

  evi-fiance has stated that he was aarning

V .V  ' p.m. Whik': working as leader in the lorry

K  ta tin: 1%' mspuzmdartit; and the Commissioner is

--  £1-pi jfisfificd in taking his saiary at R3.'2,60{}/- p.111.



12. Leamcd Cfiliflfifil for the parties stibrxsiifiihétt? 

of remanding the matter 1:6 the C;c»rfli1fissA_ic»:1er 

gmund this Court couki assazfss thc§'péif<§enta gg: gjf 

and less of earning capacity   v'f'i13_;:'VV15+21'Vsis of V

the matrzrials aVajia3:)k:':o1_':1  11$: year of
accident andxhe   his salary is
assessed at / mrning capacity
at 30%. If   be Eflfiflfid to a
compcr;:§aL{i(§§1:.:sé}f 3000 2; 60% = 1300 X

226.38  '

 =   tgsgafti' to...i.r1tcrest. the matter is cmrtitred by the

---of the Apaax Court in thy": ease of Griental

 Ltd. as Mahd. Nasir and Another

 '~;jf;:p0rt€--:~riV"i§1 2009 AIR SSW 371?, according to which rate

A  .i$ii:€.~:;_r&si:, is 7¥»€z% fmm £113 date cf application till the date;

 <)f§award and 12% from the date 9:" award til} tha date of

'4 payment. fiance I pass the: following:

%(,.



iii)

   

ORDER

‘T116 appeal is allowed.

in $1,1bs1:itution {sf awa:9;tiA .. (if
Commissioner 1 awatd Rs. Vl.,22,i?A¥5′;2G as”

compem:-xation with iiaiércst 211- “% from the
date sf petition t:i11 !:1″~–.v:-;”»:ia”s’:<::A of awardand 12%
from the data «'11:? avgraljri, date of paytxnsnt.

The a111ount_} Idrdcred to be
tranfsfrérrrzd {to f.11§.:'TITi¥31}¥f1a}'fCsI"diSbl.1I'SCI}1!3I1t.

T' A'