1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
EATED THIS THE 16th DAY 01:' JULY, 2003
BEFORE
THE H0N'ELE MR JUSTICE ASHOK B.HI§_IC!:§IGE§§I' " '
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APP:EAL"NO_.5$449j§o'g54V-[L A
C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAmt0S.5446/ 2005,'
8285/ 2005, 5443/ 2005 AND' 534::-.7/200s;{w'0) =
IN MFA NO.S449.!.'20G5 jj '
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL'»-lHSRUANCE' 0.0;' L'1f::3.,
BELLAm';:3¥AITS REGIONAL 0 "TEE
No.44-=95, LE0'SHV0'EPmca.QeM'PLEx,
RESIDENCY RQAD",AA0..BAN(':EAI;{)RE
REP. BY lTS'DEPU_T'f. MAEAGEE ..APPELLANT
(BY Sm A_.G.#§AIV)aHA'iI, Aux}. )
'1~.-- '§}1R.'i*1%£h£M;§I§EDBY,
SJO SEDDARAMAPPA,
AG-ED .32 YEARS
R /0 PAPINAYAKANAHALLI,
A * HQSPET TALUK, BELLARY DIS'I'RIC'I'.
V Sui GRAMAKIRSHNA,
SIO ANJINAPPA,AGED MAJOR,
" R] O MA}-IAKALIYAMMA TEMPLE
TORANAGALLU RS. SANDUR TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICI".
.. RESPONDENTS
{BY SM’? KEERPHI FOR ‘I. LAKSHMiKANT REDDY FOR R1,
ADV” R2 SER”v’ICE HELL’ SUFFICIENT )
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKN_IEN’S
COMPENSATION ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT: ‘AND
ORDER DATED 28.4.2005 PASSED IN .. ‘ {EASE
NO.WCA/123/03/NF on THE FILE op’ ‘rm;:…_;,.q.1:sa*,uie.((
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR _’_Ie’:’ORI€M[:EN*S_(
COMPENSATION, BELLARY SUB-Division-2;.-._ BELLARY-,-. _
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS. 1,24’9′,7as~;-
INTEREST AT 12% RA. AND D1RECrIN:H?HE<A?PELLANT".
HEREIN TO DEPOSIT THE SAME.
IN MFA NO.544~6[2005
BETWEEN:
THE ORIENTAL i–NSRUAfJiCE_fGO-,.VLTE_.u, ‘
BELLARY, BY j;;R’EG1ON£2L OFFICE,
No.44-45, r,Eo’E_s;ms%?m<;:…cm;1EP1;:9;x,( I
RESIDENCY ._RO1'J3, B?§HGALOi?E
REP. BY'-ITS' D'EPtJ'I*'¥.MANAGER"'VwVV- ..APPELLAN'I'
(BY SRI'vA.G§JADPi;§V;IAI§'V,::)" I
AND: A. — ..
” (1. ni§IN;AKuMARA$WAm,
. fsgo _H;M..N)%GAPPA
”
. R-1′ <3 H:.i_mB.AsAPPA CAMP
'SANDER "EKLUK,
BELLARY 'DISTRICT.
1′ , 4′ I —- SR! GRAMAKIRSHNA,
I ,S[O ANJINAPPAAGED MAJOR,
I i-“q’~0 MAHAKALIYAMMA TEMPLE
%TORANAGM.LU R.S. SANBUR TALUK,
BELLARY DISTRICT.
.. RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT KEERTHI FOR Y. LAKSHMIKANI’ REDDY FOR RI,
ADV.. R2 SERVED )
THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRSF AP¥’EAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMENS
(‘J
THESE MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APf’EAI;So..V”‘ARE
comma. on FOR HEARING THIS DAY,_
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: *
These appeals are
disposed of by this common ordcxfas this
H H ” the Commissioner for Workmcn’s
V 1. N.Kumarswamy Ra 4o,32o/- IN MFA NO.5446/2005
2. Kumaxswamy Rs.39,591/-IN MFA N0.5447/2005
3. Thippeswamy Rs.20,439/-IN MFA rIo.5443/2005
FISH.
injured persons have indeed received fiacture of tibia,e€r;_. As
the amounts awarded by the Commisskmer is en
conezete matenlal, she submits that
dismissed. e
6. The Clause of
third parties attached the
‘death of or caused
by or out of_;VVttie loading
and] or damage to
thefieleiele, the appellant
the insured in the event
of or arising out of the
_ -use of vehicle aéeinst all sums including the
” expenses which the insured
‘A ‘ = beeo;ne legally liable to pay in respect of.”
” 1?. V. clause is comprehensive enough to satisfy
‘\_the of the fizst respondents-claimants, as out of the 5
“ii 4 are loaders and one is a driver.
8. So far as the second submission urged on behaif
T ” the appellant that the cla1man’ ts have not sustained
permanent physical disability, it is a question of fact, which
cannot be considered under Secfion 30 of the Worlcmexfs
HE)-L
v. Qlflcrhhfifls
V’ ‘
Compensation Act. The Commissioner has his
conclusion based on the doctors’ evidence.
cross-examination also, what the_c£ors’- is ‘A u
not diluted Further, there is no .’
behalf of the appellant Insurahce. ‘ 2
the first respondent the
appellant’s doctor. K
9. Wo1k:uaen’s
Compensa:tie1j1!V restricted to the
cases of Law. In the instant
case, I as “not fiegiif of law, much less any
substamrial hijueefionh 62′ I therefore dismiss these
Sd/~
Judge