3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THEu2!'" DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 20
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MANJ1q1§'Afm;*&~%L%L* T ' AL
AND
THE I-§ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE4B,}\}iANOI§L1AR ' "
MFA.NO.6581 o§**%2:¢06 [WC} _
B EN: '4 'V L
The Oriental} Insurance Co. VIV_.tc'i..V V' A
C.G.O.No.14, No.1o;_f0:, _ _ _
IF100r, 3*" cross,
Chikkanna " %
Shankarmutt C'o.Vr.r1po;x_1nd', ' é_ '
Bangaiorewfléw -
Through its Re--gi0naI"Ofޢe:~, V '
N0.45/44._ Leo simpping C_0rf{p1eX,
R.esidenc3;.r Road, " V
zeazigaxoréaaea 001. ****
Rep.» by-its D1<..K.4V;Naga.rajan. APPELLANT
(ByM%sri;%K;K§V;:sargi1:A#& C.M.Rajakumar, KRV Associates]
ANS:
* . f » Sh:1;.La:1(sh:z1idevamrr1a
T ' @..I_.akshma1nma,
Laged about 42 years,
5""
W / o.Venkataramappa,
Resident ofVaddaraha11i Village,
Mulbagal Taluk,
Kolar District.
2. Sri.B.R.Rajagopa1,
@ Kummadevanahajli Raju.
Aged about 45 years,
Resident of Gudipalli,
Mulbagal Taluk, V * . 2 "
Kolar District. RES'§O£'€D.ENT!S
[By Sri.N.M.Prithvi Raj 8: Sri.__I§:R,I€agesha; Advofcates for
R1, R2 sewed) = '
MFA filed {a} -gofj against the
Judgment and Awa;1~da1:dat¢d;di2i'7zoos 'passed in WCA: NFC~
53: 2004 on the Officer and Commissioner
for Workmen'3V_ awarding cornpensation
of Rs.3,3_1._506/"--* a:11d.'.'intere'st of Rs.73,926/~ and directing
vappfeii?aIitfV'i1erein to deposit the same.
been heard and reserved and coming
for A'_ofonoiii'ief:erhent of Judgement this day, B.I\/£2-KNOHAR
J. ,e Vde1iverezd"'the 'following:
45¢
JUDGMENT
The Oriental Insurance 1 Company Limited;~.V_::’b’e’ing
aggrieved by the award dated 27-2-2006 made ~
53 / 2004 by the Commissioner for Work.rn_en’s’ if V’
Kolar filed this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case foil’0’¢ffS:~
The first respondent, filed petition. before the
Commissioner for Wori{nienis..V.§’:’»V seeking
compensation contending as a collie
in the Goods No.KA~07/4354
belonging The second respondent
was paying hérg: ~p.m. and Rs.40/~ per
dayas Q11′-‘i%#A’-T2004′ while taking a load of tomato
from iiingapura.ivtofvaddarahalli, due to the rash and negligent
ioféthe of the said vehicle, the goods auto fell
_i”n4f0_g£l ditchvfon the left side of the road. Due to the accident,
‘C_’_”‘the«i_clairnant sustained serious injuries. She was shifted to
,, Hospital for the tre/gtnent. However, her left leg was
amputated to the extent of 1/3 portion. The Poiice have
registered a case against the said driver under Secti_ons.2~’Z9,
337 and 338 of IPC. In View of the accident, the .
become permanently disabled to do _any4coo1ie” Tile ll”
accident took place during the course *
hence, she sought for compensation uA1’ider~ \KIor1m’ien’s’-it
Compensation Act.
3. In pursuance to the Commissioner
for Workmerfs Cops -sQ.%{inpd”resVpondent–Insurer
filed ob3’ections=7 made in the claim
petition. that-l the said vehicle is covered
by insuranceé.”‘–,g£’_p\s of the Policy, the Policy
issued coversfitieprisk of owner, driver and one coolie
Goods Auto did not possess the valid
vlicenuseplihas’ onV’i.1:he’,::.date of the accident. Hence. sought for
dismissai ofhthe. claim petition as against the insurer. The
resp.ondent owner of the vehicle remained exparte before
it hf below.
érv
4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties”, the
Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation
necessary issues.
5. In order to prove the case, the »-c1airnar1t”c-Viexamiineid V
herself as P.W1 and got marked the
Ex.P.6 and she has examined
The Insurer cross-examined.}ooth..P;W}:1
6. In the cross–examination1,’ I that she was
working as a coo1ie”rT.1nder:_the..’secontifrespondent since two
years. While, of tomato to Vaddarahalli
market, the ‘vehic_1e’ an accident. The owner of
the vehicileivwas her a salary of Rs.3,000/– p.m. and
batta. The accident has taken place
Vduringiithe employment. Due to the accident, her
_w’7e.._Q’1eftV}.eg was sinpntated to the extent of 1/3 portion and she is
2 . = .¢;atit1eci for the compensation.’
éw
7. The Doctor who examined her was also cross–examined
by the Insurer. In the cross–examination. the Doctorthas
deposed that due to the Gangrene, the left leg of
was amputated and the disability was_a..Ssessed”a’t it ”
the Commissioner for Workmen’s~. C_’oa’1pens’ati’ori
considering the oral and documentary evidence -vparties; . C’
taking into consideration the by the
claimant as Rs.3,000/~ getpplying relevant
factor, awarded compe.nsaftilon — with interest
at the rate of 12.3/0 petition.
8. The by the award passed by
the Commislsiojnerl Compensation filed the
abéve appear.
» learned counsel appearing for the
that the compensation awarded by the
Commisslioner for Workmen’s Compensation is contrary to
also contends that though the Doctor has
Aw
assessed the disability at 50%, the Commissioner had taken
the disability at 100% and awarded compensation, which is
contrary to law. Further contended that awarding -.fl1.Q9’b
interest from the date of filing of the claim
contrary to the law laid down by the ;vHMo:ri’ble
and sought for setting aside. the
Commissioner.
10. 03:1 the other for the first
respondent ‘bassed by the
Commissioner contending that
since the leg has been amputated, she has
suffered disability to Work. Hence, she is entitled
for ggcompeinsatiou by the Commissioner and sought
for_Vdismissab.i appeai.
carefully gone through the arguments
“”T.-iéiaddregssedllby’ the parties; perused the award and oral and
evidence Iet in by the parties.
é~
12. It is not in dispute that the claimant was injured in a
motor accident that occurred on 19–4–2004~ while _a
load of tomato to Vaddarahalli market. _
accident, the claimant was admitted; it
Since, the Gangrene has developed in:l”hei5,’_’left leg
leg was amputated to the extent.,:Vpoi7,_%i portion, ~b’odiIy*ll
disability was assessed at 5.90/0, pti1’el:..fi:nctional’disability was
assessed at 100% by the is an illiterate
woman, doing coolie» amputated, she
cannot do any thew.-Commissioner taking
into consid.’ei*atio.nvf, suffered by the
claimant, age,V’the her and also applying the
relevant factonhas “the compensation, which is in
illiloiwever, while assessing the income,
the Corninis:siorier._hjas not taken into consideration the batta
of Rs.-41}/_V- per claimed by the claimant, since the coolie is
” “eij1tit1ezd’v.for any batta. Taking into consideration 60% of
drawn by tifienclaimant, age and also applying the
relevant factor. the Commissioner has awarded
compensation. We find there is no infirmity or irregularity in
the said order. Hence, We confirm the said order.
13. The contention of the appellant’s cot_1Hr__1se~.l.
interest awarded by the Commissioner ‘rate
from the date of claim petition is,eontra;1y_ to theslawt has -‘
substance. The Hor1’ble Ca
reported in 2009 AIR of THE
ORIENTAL INSURANCE V/s. MOHD.
NASIR AND ‘that the claimant is
entitled to of -7.53% pa. from the date of
claim petition”‘~till the award and at the
rate of date of passing the award till
the above, we pass the following:
A it C O R D E R
filed by the appellant is allowed in part.
«:j.C’ornpensation awarded by the Commissioner is confirmed.
the claimant is entitled for interest at the rate of
/SW
7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of
passing the award and at the rate of 12% p.21. from the
passing the award til} deposit.
The compensation amount in if
court may be transferred to the Motof–._Accidejnts ‘
Tribunal, Koiar.
Juⅇ
eai§.;
*b”df§$§9e