M.F.A.NO.3042/2004
IN mm maxi mum or mnxxrum A1' nmaawnp
mm!) mm 'mm 281'! my on MAY 2093
swam Q _%
mm nomnm MR.JU81'I¢E S
M.F.A. No.3o4g12§§o4 .S jLS M H'
nmwmn: 4'
1 UNYPED INDIA INSURANCE Comb
BELLARY BRANCH,
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL OFFICE'
SHANKARANARAYANS B.U1LD1I2;S
No.25, MG. ROAD "
BANGALORE, REP BY 9,S.Sf:*. gxaaamcgsa.
SRi'I'PRASAD"R_AO * - ~,...'APPELLAN'T
(BY MS. PREE'_1'E_T. KOMAR. ADV. V
F012 SRISB Cb_9~.EE'PHARf£MA"RAO.)
1 GAEEGADHAR V
S/O. VANPJIIRAPPA, 23 YEARS
OBALAPURAM V£.LI.£-._G}£"
2;1RSHAL M-m~;DA1.AM
~ F:IAYAD!JRGA '1*A:.x..:._K
_ 'Q SSANANTHAEIJR I)ISI',A.?.
2 V :_v vE:~1i{A*fSSSALU S/() v THIMMAPPA
._ " .zy1AJ01r4;_,..;2/~A*r No.30,
A , warm N016,
"K.C.»..'R(J.'!.'D
i3ELi..i;§.RY RESPONDENTS
” {BY SR1 C; MANJUNATHA, ADV. FOR
T – =sR.¥.–Y LAKSHMIKANT REDDY FOR R1; R2 SERVED}
THIS MFA FILED U] S. 30(1}(a} OF W.C. ACT, AGAINST
frag ORDER m’.27.o2.2oo4 PASSED IN CWC.WCA.NF.928/01,
‘on THE FILE 0? THE LABOUR OFFIEER 85 COMMISSIONER
‘FOR woRKMEN’s COMPENSATION, SL¥B–D§VISION-1,
M.F.A.NO.3042/2004
BELLARY, AWARIIHNG COMPENSATION OF RS.44.232/– WYFH
INTEREST ‘1’!-IEREON.
‘I’HiS APPEAL comma on FOR HEARWG, nus
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U Q G M E N T
This appeal by United India Ziriémzaxjlee
Ltd. is d1reet’ ed agam st the judgmetit__deteti ”
passed by the Commiseieniir
Compensation, Sub-Division-‘.i’,W it
relates to the claim By the
impugned awarded a
ceinpensation respondent
No. 1/c1a;;n¢.ng;,,, by him in an
accident:VV’th}é1t while he was
work1’ng,in iozfry Abe1b:n@’ng to respondent No.2-
: It._haeA awarded interest thereon @
12°}’op,ua; of one month from the date of
V accident :t1:1eTV’date of deposit of the award amount by
‘ ” appe};lent–Insu;rance Company.
have heard the learned counsel appearing for
‘ parfies, perused the imp-ugmed judment and the
W
M. F’.A.NO.3042/2004
record of the proceeding before the Work:men’s
Compensation Commissioner.
3. The sole contention urged by T’ 1 ‘V
Komar,_ learned counsel * ‘V [_
S1i.B.C.Seetharama Rao for V
Company is that the had
not considering Ex.P–5. is
at page 112 of the learned
counsel. the show that
respondent sufiered any
1 injuries in the
accident heznee of loss of earn1n’ g
eapacifty at 2o%.issuns:s,st%ainab1e in Law.
Sri G.Manjuna’.tha, learned
for respondent No.1 supported the
d T . ‘_ . 44 ‘ i.t_;opug1edjndment.
the light of the contention urged by the
VT counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance
We
M. F’.A.NO.3042/2004
Company, the only question that fails
determixmfion in this appeal is as to whetherrj
Commissioner was justified in assessing thef*1oss” ef= : ‘
eammg’ capacity at 20% on the basis»Vot’1;he’
a Doctor, who is stated to be a , “[ A
6. It is relevant to refer to ‘df
which read as follows: ‘ .’ V
2cm
2. Abbrassicrn -eiieiztasgiect 1 x 1 cm…
3. Abbrassignii.d:;2er iiflf the (Ding toe.
4. ‘ t
5. Tend ernese V joint
Xray Remddd ….. .. : No evidence of bony
infuIv~*:eien d
injury is simple in nature.’
e from the above, respondent
V had not sufiered any fractures and he
V’ only simple injuries in the accident. It is
__*–no£”§disputed by the learned counsel for respondent
‘ A» that the said document had not been considered
W
ma _ A Sd/’-
M.f”.A.NO.3042/2004
by the Commissioner for Worlrmeafs Compensation.
the absence of such consideration, in my opi11ior1;’wtlfse,”‘*.s’
impugned judgment is vitiated and the ”
to be reconsidered by the Commissisnelf
with law.
7. In the result, I make the
1) the impugned ;ifid@§eI.}t as it
relates to the claim is
set-aside;..lti1e to the
Court fi30I’k[I1CI1’S
Comfiensstiongtt Bellary for
with law; all
tiie parties are kept
opexig, ” _
ii} ; istpennitted to withdraw the
– , & Iymtgtfiidcposit with this Court.
1 =App.e~;at”‘;sssi%sp5sed of.
Judge