IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD ,
DATED THIS THE Sm DAY OF JANUARY, 201:: If
EEFORE _.
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE v. JAGANNACiT'HAI'iO_C.:'~
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST AFFEAL--NO.T_859/;2Or;3 C'
C /W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST A'I'?PEAL N%.OS,.§4'9§35/2-005; f
4987/2004 AND 7861/2003
IN MFA NO.7359/2003 ' C' "
BETWEEN:
M] S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE ,.
COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE,
NO. 25, SHANKARNARAYANA .BUILDiN¢Z},
M.G.ROAD, BANGALORE 560 091
REPRESENTED BY ITS v
DEPUTY MANAGER)"
....APPELLAN'I'
(By SrI.A,M.vE.NKATESH, Adv.) 1 _
AND
1. SRIP;KHAS1M,_ " '
S/O KARIMIISAB,' A A
AGED ABC-.UT~ 27 YEARS, "
R10 :~1USSAIN,NA'GAR, BELLARY.
A - 2. "SR1 K;I.KRISHNANANDA,
' n ,S/ O BANDEFPA, MAJOR,
~ TN-O_.9*,-.1, 17A'; .175?" WARD,
'_PATEII"1'TAGAR,"BELLARY.
I= ._.RESFONDENTS
(By"'Sri. Y'.'L;'..KS'»HMIKANTH REDDY, Adv. FOR R1.)
"'T.RTS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION son; OF w.c. ACT
AGAINST' THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.9.03 PASSED IN
WCA']"«NF/871/O1 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
"'CO'fi/HVIISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, BELLARY
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.37,594/-- WITH INTEREST AT 12%
A ., AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO PAY THE SAME.
D.N0.11'7--A, 1"/T" WARD, PATEL NAGAR,
BELLARY 583 I01.
2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, BELLARY 583 101. .. RESE§NDE.NTS' _
(BY SR1 A.M.\/ENKATESH, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION Sou) --o_E-w._C."'AcT
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22.9.03 PASSED IN NIQ.WCA.NF.,8I717§)1
ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICERAND COMI\:I.1SSIONER1FOI{~_V
WORKMEN COMPENSATION, SUB DIVISIONJJI BELLA?-?Y,. PARTLY I .
ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION i7'QR~v.COMPENSATI0N "SEEKING "
ENHANCEMENT OF CQMPENSATION';-. " .__
IN MFA NO.7861[20O3 " ''
BETWEEN
M/S UNITED INDIA,I_NSURANC~E_C'O1Vf--PANY
LIMITED, REGIONAL OFFIQE, No;'25,., '
SHANKARNARAYANISLBUILDING, " _
M.G. ROAD, BAN'SALQR_E 56.o_o01.. '
* REPRESENTED E;Y*I',1"S .
DEI>UT§c"I\/IA1x:A.¢}:;R. I"?-: ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI :A.M';VEPJKA'i'1ESH,=AD1f,_)I" _I
AND:
1. SR1. BHEEMAL'INQARRA. @ CHEEMALINGA,
"S/O ac-HARLES, MAJOR, R/AT NEAR BSAL
I ' ', _»FACTAOR'.'_, ANANTHPURA ROD, BELLARY.
I 2. ._*.':'~RI I25.' 'I<RISHNANANDA,
-- A SIC BANDEFPA, MAJOR, NO.9,11'7--A,
7TH PATEL NAG-AR, BELLARY. .. RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI TLLAKSHMIKANTH REDDY, ADV. FOR R1.
1 R2313.)
. THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 10(1) OF W.C. ACT
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 22.9.2003 IN
=....WCA.NF.872/O1 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENASTION, BELLARY,
AWARDING COMPENSATION OF RS.21,569/-- WITH INTEREST AT 12%
AND DIRECTING THE APPELLANT HEREIN TO PAY THE SAME. V.
THESE APPEALS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION.«Ti!IS-«_D'AY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: I ~ . I "- " V
JUDGMENT
All these appeals arise out of one
passed by the W.C.Comnii_ssioner;-..lBellai’yl;’
7859/2003 and 7861 /2003 insurance
company questioning cvorinpgensation awarded
to the respectiveclaimants.iSindv–.Ithe_ Miscellaneous
First Appeals rejspecltiye’;claimants seeking
enhancement I I
hjere.ji«s as regards employer-
employee the two employees on one
side grand eInlployer”on.lV’the other. The only grievance of the
~,.i.,ir1Sxt1rance conipanvymin two appeals filed by it is that the
As–..Coinmi.svsioner=committed error in assessing the loss of
ear*n__ing_.ee.pacity at 15% in one case and 10% in the other
Wcase and :as there was no fracture suffered by the respective
“”lI.Ac1airn.ants, the question of any disability being there does not
3/
,-
arise and as such, the Commissioner could not have
awarded the compensation of Rs.36,594/~« in respecti’-o_i~t_he
claimant Khasim and Rs.21,569/- in respect of _
Bheernalingappa. _ ._ _ A
3. So far as the appeals filed by tl1eV:”resipec’tive.
claimants are concerned, the submission of the” ClaiII:ar1.ts”–_
counsel is that the percentage.to.lof loss ‘of eeariaing capacity it
taken by the Commis’sionerVAl”i’s’Aon llithfie lovver ‘side while
compared to the medical .c_eivildenc:e the claimant
and consequen..’tly’–the fijincolme ot”~.th.e Claimant Khasim was
taken on aliiovver fiignrelthotigh. he was a driver and so also
in the case ‘of other
V V. I-Iavinlgthtis heard both sides and taking note of
the ‘con’teVntion_s'”_urged as above, so far as the assessment of
earning _capacity percentage is concerned, no doubt the
respective claimants did not suffer any fracture but that
icioellsgnot mean that the injury caused to them did not cause
any disability to the respective claimants. The doctor-
.i’>
\;
A.S.Dani, who was examined, has deposed that so far as
Khasim is concerned, there is pain and swelling onvtheiiimb
region and continuous pain at the back of the « _
spread to sciatic nerve and therefore the said–p.ati.ent::iinds itw.
difficult to bend his chest
movement is aiso affected ongacacount .of”mai1ag”1a.. V:So takingi’ ,
all these facts into consideratiornthe Doc.to:r’vhas¥§aSsesSed
the earning capacity .\,’iin..caseiHHofii claimant
Bheemaiingappa, the t}geit” ‘said patient had
difficult t0 br€:i*:l4tiii1″§i-i1orri’1a1i3;r pain and he also
had right iir’es’tricted on account of
from earning point
of viewziaround’ The Commissioner, after taking
notegof the above .e.Vidence:of the Doctor and also having had
“V..,.,thei._.bcnefiti–of respective claimants deposing before him,
it fit to reduce the earning capacity
percentage ‘:ii(3′;:l5°/0 in respect of Khasim and 10% in respect
of oth*e_r’c1aimant Bheemalingappa. The said finding of the
V’ Commissioner being purely on finding of fact, no substantial
question of law arises as regards the said finding.
9:
/
‘7. For the aforesaid reasons, all the appeais stand
disposed of accordingly. Insurance company is to
deposit the interest aiso within four weeks. .
deposit be transferred to the WC. COInIniSSi011’€1:{*.. V.
»_ *Iués%
krnv