M?"/-'« !\%o.S'5S4 of ZGG7
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 21$'? DAY OF' JANUARV--2'Q: _ "
BEFORE S E S
THE HON'BLE MR.JUs'r1cE§v.§iAGANI:!A*fHA1§' it
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL"N;§;'5554/_2'{2D7 {WC}!
BETWEEN:
United India Insurance_.Co.
Divisional Office, Bellaryi, ' -.
By its Manager.__ '' f..APPELLANT
(By Sri. it
A N D: S 2 S H" it
1. Sri 1i:{.Baseig5gja-;vAAee:it'i .. A A
since' -deceased'
1A. Smt. N¢e:a%mma,iAe A '
.'J.i[/ oilate E-I.'B.aS_appa,
A '"Age5:."A38'i'yAearS, Obie: House wife.
0 iate 1-I.Basappa,
Age: i2¥IFjyears, OCC: Student.
1C. Sri.V"'Tehi'}apayya, S/0 late I-I.Basappa,
AA Age':u.--2O years, Occ: Student.
Rudra, S/0 iate I-I.E3aSappa,
; Age: 18 years, Occ: Student.
MFA No,5554 of 2007
IE. Kumari. Kenchamma, D/o late .H.Basappa,
Age: 15 years, Occ: Student.
1F. Sri. Hulugappa, S/o late H.Basappa,
Age: 10 years, Occ: Student.
1G. Sri. Amaresh, S/o late H.Basapps.,, if
Age: 7 years, Occ: Student. ' "
All are R/o Dodda Anan»thapura._ " . ,
Village, Tq: Sandur, Dist:-Bellary. g s ' '
Respondents No.1E to_.G are m.ii_j'1'ors»_,
represented by their natural_"iguardia.n'~--_
mother Respondent Nol.'IA- * __ pi _
Srnt. Neelamma, W/ 0" late" l<:LBVas:ap*pa.' 1 ..
2. M /s Mode1§,'st::fi¢ Crusher
Anantha_pural\Zill:_age-,_--..__ _
Sandur 'Falu.k;;,VBellary"I)istrict. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri, Han,iuimvan.,th«areddy__Sahukar, Advocate]
4;"I"his mi'sc_ellaneous first appeal is filed under
'll'~._Seol.lCn;_..,_30.(1) of'""~the Workmen's Compensation Act
,aga_inst' the"«order dated 21.04.2007 passed in Case
,_N'oV.3'O,,/G4flNl'F,_ 'on the file of the Labour Officer and
7Co1"11inissi"ovzier,""V for "Workmen's Compensation, Sub
Divi_sion¢2, ' Bellary, awarding a compensation of
Rs.4i0,4"-1,5/"'9 with interest 12% pa. after 30 days from
da'ie__of accident til.l the date of deposit.
= g = r.«'I'his miscellaneous first appeal coming on for
- orders this day, the Court delivered the following:
MFA N0.55S4 of 2007
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the
respect of the appeal preferred by
company questioning the
awarded by the Comnii-shsionerr’ for
Compensation, Beliary, to feVspondent;cItiiimant.
2. Shri A.M.Vet1«};F;tesh, for the
appe11ant~insuranee that the
Commissio_n.e*it 2o’0/ha idiisabiiity when the
injury.,_”iiieV.;’eA of one eye, only
permitsA~.1VVt)”/oiof capacity being taken
as per aSC1:1Vedt;*1eA-ii-, Vi”‘:Part~II of the Workmen’s
‘”CAomp.ei<iisation Act.umSecondIy, the Commissioner having
that the income of the claimant
w'as«<._Rs__7v'1',3i534/~ per month could not have taken the
'saline at–Rs.2,200/» per month. Therefore, compensation
i be "reeluced.
/’
,1
MFA N0555-=3 of 2007
3. On the other hand, Shri. Hanumanthareddy
Sahukar, learned counsel for the respondent~clai:in_aiit
argued that the compensation awardefii .
Commissioner is just and 1.-p”ro-per
modification and, moreover? the
cutter injury on the eye
4. Having thus afia”‘of’ithe View
that the Commissioner’ The first
one is, when at salary of
the claimaiat p’erV’gnrionth, there was no
need to -take at Rs.2,200/– per month.
Secondly,”v_g;henVV”tliek of earning capacity for the
injuriyfVsustaine–d.____hy. the claimant is 10% as per
Sc’hedu.le*–1″to”vthe Workmen’s Compensation Act, the
Co.rn:nisVs1o”tieVr’could not have taken the same at 20%
‘.V_notwuithflstanding the fact that the claimant was working
A Vakstone cutter. Consequently, under the head ‘loss of
fttture earnings’, the appellant will be entitled to
}/~
o!
MFA N05554 of 2007
U1
Rs.l2430/– (153.09 X 812 X 1.0/IOO). The rest of the
order of the Commissioner is retained.
5. Appeal is allowed in part of
compensation being so reducedfa
Appellant is entitled ‘ exeessvviivafiiount it
deposited. The remairiipg amouijt lj’r:_tra1isie’1’:”ed to the
Commissioner for Woril<iir.ri1'er'1i"s5"Corriipéesation for being
paid to the cliaiiiijant.
5:, am:
‘V A ‘
Kms* _