High Court Karnataka High Court

The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Jayalakshmi W/O Shivalingu @ … on 17 November, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Smt Jayalakshmi W/O Shivalingu @ … on 17 November, 2009
Author: V.Jagannathan
IN THE HI(:.}§"'§ é.'(i".)i_§R'I' OE." KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

Dated: 'I."}"1_is:_; the 27%" day of November 

EBEFORE

THE I~w1("'>ms1",.::: M1<..__J1_Js';'1cE V.JAGANNAn»LS;N  3

'.\/I.I9'.A.N.4O65/2608    4'

BETWEEN: I

~'..:x_'_' --' <

THE OI-~Z¥I"lN'!"AI- INS{,§RJ--kNC.'§',CO,V. I.,"I'D;,._ '
DO--4, 1-;a;w21;    
THRO1.?("':§ ; miss R:+:.{__j;1»<)NAL QFI«"zcE;'~.E_
LEO SH€'3!'PING (".()1\/|;_I1"i_E3-X...7'   "
# 44/45%. 1<;;::s11)E«;r\%.<i':.\{' §=33_OAD., "
   .. 

REP BY %_i’1’s”‘:\.l1ANA(;ER'” ”

SR1    »

' 5   »   ...APPELLANT

1;: :'i.:,:;.-V; ii};  RAC), ADV. J

V, ._§:”S”1\/i.”i’ LJ.i;”\.\i;{:§t”1.:. §<;s1«;}\/1 :.

– “W./O r:m;.1’rxfG’L: 131* Sf—‘{1’VA.NNA.
A . 3 A_QE£) .;-3.~B{>1I’§’ 39 YEEAI–RS.

:v3:*;w:é1 §1’i>A1,A”mA.

‘ ‘ D/Q’E5′:1;:Em1.,INGiE; SHIVANNA.
AGIED 4-22:-:”a:__é’1’ 22 ‘r’I.:2z’\I-ES.

Kim”/1 :3 §’v’§;-‘%E_.’)]. :LJm_

‘E 1:) /0 SH mx; 3 SHIVANNA,

–5AGEI’3 ;x:;i__.%”;* :20 YI:IA.RS.

SR1 S (1252T%£..§[k,I._)f*1AI{A.

S/O SH§’x’:’\i,iNGi..i SHIVANNA.

AGED .e”1§%(‘)i 7’? 18 YEARS.

{J

5. KUM S ii-‘7\\5I’I”I”£f{1’\’
D / O SI-I§\~’.»*\§..’ING{,§ 252??-A SHIVANNA.
AGED z”~.I.3(.._}[..f’§’ 16 YTEARS.

SINCE E;”\T{“)§-Q REP I__:3’r’ NATURAL 1_
GUARI3§;’-W BY M.(T’)’I”II§”~ZR RI. A 1- ‘

ALL Am: E~{;'(j’i} O1:>1:’>: EvIA£)l)URAM3\/IA TEMPILE. :”

BEI~I1]’\§£’): “I”‘£L§-ES FAC’I’ORY.
KANAKOXI—‘%§I'{z\ “I.’AI.UK. :

BANG1\§_,I3{I’?Z RURAI. DISTRICT. A 1 1′

6. SR1 B A ..<sm;;I12 AI~uvII=:1),. _
S/O A';"":'A {ELLA KI"I.A.N.' _ "

AGED f\I5.t\:.:«;. ROAD…’ $1–i.ANKA£{IAPURAM, ”
BANGA:.,<__3I-<_I-:–4. " ' ._ g AA =
(OWN!-CR OI-'= BUS ?.\10~; KA;O'1:/S_..9'45{3}

– = ‘v_.IV.”RESPONDENTS

[By Srj .._ i”<:i§'_i1;:<;;I I I*A<5:I'a A«I}S..SVVVB5MUKKANNAPPA &

ASSCTS, AAi"}=:.-;§f}V. I«"<");'<. I_€ '§'..j¥"(i') 4.}.

*I*H_1'S EV: 30(1) OF we ACT AGAINST
T1riE_ JU1');»:.E~’I*I«:I): 22.5.2006 PASSED IN
WCIQI/FE/(i’iI’#i.’?’~;§§.A__51,,/;:(.)(j34u ON mp: FILE OF THE

‘*«{:§¥’F’«’I(iffE§R AND COMMISSIONER FOR

‘v;IORI§’1vIEé:;’$:;O_: (.T.OMl?’IiE\§$A’F1ON. SUB DIVISIONW4,

‘BAIJ’GALmG A COMPENSATION OF RS.

2.’6**?.9:3:’?;/I “‘iA::’GI §N’Fi{f<Ié1f§:§'f' 12% PA.

_ THIS i\§'%5"§-IRE, <;:Gv.v1ING ON FOR DISPOSAL THIS
"%.D;AY, THE ('..z'j'% 1…: zest' I)£EIJI"v'F*3RI3D THE FOLLOWING:

-1
‘3

DGMEZNT

I.A.H/O8 is: allmvml ass delay is satisfactorily

explained. I.A.¥II/05% for stay does not

consideraimn in \«’i€VV <sf"t'11e disposal of the'«'.appeaI. = t

2. Heard learned (ro11hé§e’I'<fo_r"..th_e

respect of the :'1ppeaI p_refer1;e.db'"l:;$z

Company (.1L1€Sf§(}1'1il'1g_{ the"eo1npehsatior¥ to
the respo'nc'1em;~;, "I'l1"e,..V_tV_Cf}C'o:hientS'3_ioner' had" allowed
the eiaim application ifiletihtlfiy_…g}1efx~fesspondents by

awarding 121$ B07/-. The said quantum

is called in :’e h1sura’r1Ce Company.

5′ ‘V 3. I;(‘£”lIf1f}’€.?(1§ e’oL1:zi1$;<_'I for the appellant submits

afthevt.ffom1*1':";'s5Ss'io1"m' erred in taking the income

the–2 <'ei1i1'1;,:' limit: prescribed under section

.' »<L('1«)(b)« ot£i'j_W'.C.A<~i and the maximum that could have

been».fcon'Si{:iere<:'% would have been Rs-.2,000/– at the
relevafit time ;::':(i_ o1'1!§,-' after the amendment was

effected frmn 8. §_'2..20(){). the upper limit. was raised to
Rs;4.000/ ~, In the énstamt ease, the accident

$
J,»

R!

.–.

-+

occurred on 6.10.2()i}() zmd therefore even if the

maximum iimié of R:~s.2.()00/– is taken as monthly

Wages, 50% oi’ the SEEIIEL’ will be Rs.1,000/

appropriate 1*<:1m-'ant i"2'=1<:'?tc)1" to be appi'ie__d

153.09. Tilus. the v<'):'i'i})ens;;itioniwiil

Rs.1,53,09(')/-. 'i'o tiiiv said theorder'~oi':.:the"~

Commissioner i"L"{}1,1iI't"..'~.3 1iiodiufi'c:a_ti()n"aridas ais the
interest is 1’i<x-.:*:-'1'ie(E.,_ ti'i_-eh re2c:–e1.it."0Apex Coiirt ruling
reported in 2009 AIR .'5€..'W' "3'7i7.-has-'.Ito__'be followed.

.Vii'”o:ii’m” h%1’i1d, learned counsel for
the (f1.airn2aii”1i_.s E§i~iii__i11:€d_:§’.’§’1t-21.1 the compensation awarded

by_ the 4°=<'i"Vt_jm11-ii§s=:.5ioi':£_i2-' requires no modification

' Vxr1iai.50evei' E;ll:§i:'§"""htff rcfe.i'red to para.11 of the

~:)i*_d<=;_~.1" so c<._mi_(~nd that the income taken at

RS.3,500g5 dpei' §:'i{'3i'1TI"i is jiist and reasonable.

H&1\'§ii;g' fl"l%.iFé E"1ea1'd both sides and taking

of the daiiza-= of ;.uic':i(iei'ii. ie on 6.10.2000 and

'2 amendment loving; gii:L':1'1 effect to from 8.12.2000

raising t.'r1. i2iix’C1’1 iiw xv;-iggczss at Rs.3,500/–, but on

%

‘K

the other 13:-::’1<'l, :2-:}<ing maximum Wages at

Rs.2,000/– per mom}-'1. the compensation ought to

have been qL,1a~m2if'ied :1: Rs.}.53.090/~ and.&..as:'fé'j'=.e:évs

the payme1'"2t' of i21£.e1*c~s~;£' ecmcernecl. it is.__'paya,blie% at' "

7 1/2 % from the :_:§a_t,e :z’zr11§ssie1<1efV_and tld_e1'e3;fterA'*at'~.

12% till tlze (slate 0? pa;-I:Tf1'e11t. the
impugned 1’clez* <')f".fhr:.'A_ (l"jg.§z§lfi1is4si_e'12.er is rlrliioclified and
the claillmrats will a sum of

Rs. 1 ,53 , 09:') /" i. E": "in ¥ é{l°ere15fienti0ned.

VV,Tl–1e i4éf1–li.k;\rt;-rc:1 in part. thus. The excess
amourlufebél .1’:-‘l3:.:_zitf.et1V..:_l..é’:> the appellant. The modified

3§1″£’3:011_i*:t.Vvviéli*;;:1.a.§§f_1;”L1e(.l iI1Et’,I’€S'{‘, shall be paid to the

‘ e}airn_a1’1ts. .,

Sd/4
JUDGE

~ V Dmf: