IN THE HEGH CCIURT {BF £{ARNfifi'AKA AT BANGALQRE
Dated the 303: cia}; Gf Nevember 2009
: B E F C) R E : '
'THE HQN'BLE: MZ€.JUS'I'ICE ; V.JA13AN§%'§é:§'T§i:§§§'"' '
MISCELLANEOUS FIRS"1" APPEAgg~gq. 5775' 2 f%,;f:;Q€T56 %§:mf% ' '
M.F'.A.Nc3. snag 1 2Q{):a;mg§,a;:_g ' '
BBJTWEEN :
United india Insurance: C30. Lté;
Davanagere D0, '.:}r1r0L1$;11.'_its
Regional Offzce at No.2:€; ' _ ,
Shankaxaflarayaraa Building, i _
M.C},Roacl, Banga.i§};*e~;'3Es0 {i€}':* E,'
Rep. by its Dep'uf5;f.'Maf1ag{t:r"V A ' V.
Sri .
3' = » ' ' ...Appe1}amt
fcolnman)
Rae, Advocaie' }
A§\IE)_;
*' '~ In E7515 ' ';"~'2f306:
:~';:~: {};SI1§$ifiidfx3I,
f:Zig",z%;g»3d abczut 22 years,
R j 'Q__4H6s31{€:zj::ATVi}1age, Jagalur District.
M.F';_g;Ne. 5-758 / 2006:
"'-fSr§_?s/i';.'KaIisiéciaiaE1,
S5fG'2§§:1111gc:1c%raiah,
Ageé abeut 323 yaars,
" "E/5 M.K.§-latti, Chitradurgaa
. 9,§Ee$pe:1d€nts
{ 8}: Sri V.P.K"a1§{arni§ girzivaeate, }
M)
Eviisceflaneous First Appeals flied unécir Sjéction
381(1) af W13. Act. against tha judg;1:1em: and 0rc§e'1*-V
30.11.2005
passed in w<:A:{::R;1<3;_a£iéii)§;:é:h'%;—~
WC2A:C:R: 104/2004 raspectivaly, on
Labcrur Ofiicer and Coinmistéiofiér' 1 'e:)r-1"§.&f1o»riV;:;§§é::;_'S'«
Cempensatiozz, Chitradurga, I a Téompazzsfifiafii'
of Rs,=.;2,i}1,6(){}j~ 85 Rs.2;'1_Q';-211/¥'- :espe¢tiV%¢1:,a,.. with" A
interest at 12% p.21. after 3L§3'«.,§1a3fs f14t);:1 1;heVf%datae of
accident tifl deposit tiV1e:-,_" ;2:.Q;:~e1}a:1t herein to
deposit the sama.
These Ciémi€ng’x0I.i’ f§)1*V.’i1s3«:«:1i:ing this day, the
eourt {ie}ivtéfec_i.”‘.:§ji”e7 ‘f€>1Idia%j-.f1ig : ‘A ‘
‘ = N T’
}’:3ot:h~L:i1<=:se"'a_§§;jaai$»L.a2'ise out of a coxnmon order
passgéfii uh}; Commissiarzcr by which the
é§;:v.iiuca§iet}.€:'VA.iEi¢d by the respective respondexgvciaimagxt
3i:::17t:..Vaii§§v&_€:d ':;=f.1tid compensation was awanziefi in a sum
V -V ef 1/" in respect of apyiicant Karisiddayya
" a1iA}.<:1L-;'F';:$§iV;?2;',if)}.,6OG/~« was awaréed in resms;-1: of aypiimnt
Sgiitfisfiidhar. The findizlg on the percentaga of less <31'
" éarnir1g capacity; taker: by the Cfemmissiener is gaiied in
quesizgian in these appeals an the gonad that the said
fmdmg is p€§Y€I'$€:§, 1%
*2
3
2. T335 learned counsei far the appeila;1t~i1:1su:%a1:c<:
Cfmmpany argued that while the accident havtir1gV–'taken
place on 13.1.2034 is 1101: in dispute, yet,
sustaineti by the respectiva applicants are V'
duster has opined before the CC"10i:1}_::.is*sio:1'1e1}" 'a;i1 d',' ' as
such, a careftii exaxnirlatien. of th{:..g:i€;cu111¢:1:fist pI*0c1'?:3.¢<:(i
would go to show that thougi1.V:ihe res"pe,¢'t;ivé fippficants
suffered certain i:";,_i13j:'j"'€5, not injurias
which were refiepted h1_x%%§)1inc£'~-defiiiifiitates issued ta
them: and '%.}$v1"i(: 1i'é}S vissfiued the disabifity
<:e1*ti3':i\i:_a*I;r::_:.~;;, xx2*as':<1i3§. tioctm' who; had irlitiafly treated
£116: 8._§)p§{',;_';l1ZI.v§§. ' §e:{f'<:.<jvt:r, no medical record was
prqrigééecfi by who had issueé the disabiiity
Ceri:ificat«::s.4f1£3Ij any x-'ray W83 preciuced to canfmn the
'.1;fit:;:,1'€V injuries suffered by the respective
-V app§i::ait§cs..’ ” Fer all these reasons, the assessment af
~.,::;-;ss._ eazfning capacity at 5€i% by ‘£316 Will
‘ Cpmfliissianer is amntrazjv ‘:0 the €E?i§€flCf3 911 recerd and
” is p€§I”§J'(’31″$(3 £1116, tlzerafere, {he matter be remanéeé to
thfi Ciommissioner for fresh CG1{1Sid€3I’a'{i0}1.
}
?¥
3, in the Eight of the Stlbstantiai question Qf iaw
raised in these two appeals and the <:0nt<;:11ti:§;::§5*§'–«_;'31;:
fem-'a1'd as above by the a,ppe1lanI:'s counsefi} '
for c0nsi.d+:51'atio:1 is whether; »~'33»]_('::' " (:55 V
CGIIi1I"iiSSiO11<3I' as regards the I0s$.Voi*._<é'=;é.rr1jfi'g3:%'<;a;3.aCi$f ._
509.’/he can be said to be in a{,–*q6r.dan5e.}x?it1j “§I1Vé. Vii1atk:I*iaI ‘V
011 record.
4. In the light ” i:na{ie by the
appel1a_m:’s recerd of this
case and t.11e accident which
occurxiéfzl __ fha iI1j1ire~:i (i1″i’S/’61’ and the
cleaner :–41″;’§E1::%44LV.””:.:~;”;s.«*e3:z1z:c1e:1t Eiospital at Sim
fan’ ‘:;’ie”a.:;1:1aar;:;” A. .__ E”Jei?t;1f1er in 1:216 svidence before the
‘§:’~€}£I1II;iSS3:.{)I7§éf£’~.V zmz’ in ifzeir claim applications, the
‘ ét.ate<:i 1:0 the effect that thfiy had hater:
V . g'Vefi"t1ۤatfi1$r1: at the Gaverrmaent Hospital at Sim. 1530
V:1e'é<:L1:;1ei1ft, parijcuiarly the wound certificate, is
-AT«’.–fc’}:*};’§’1c§fQmir3g from the Government Hosgaitai, Sim. What
” ié produced bafora the Ctommissiener is the wound
certificate issued by the Gs::ve:’nme:1t Hospitai at Hixéyuz’.
Ever: if the Saici Wmmci cartiiicates am taken as izaving
}
‘vi
been issusd by {ha Hospital at Himyur, the :injuries
nomad in the Waund certificates do not talk? with the
injuries mtzntioned in the F’.I.R. by the: dxiver hiiilfiifiif,
paruicuiarly in the case of appiicam: Sh3Shi{T1,§1;’§;i:
accarding to the complainant, ‘had suI_’f1§;i§m§:* ii;’1ji,1ri%:s? ‘
over the right eye–brow, whereas tl”§é’:§>t;u1:{i*
issued in respect of Shashidhéxfi is-‘svealsv iiufiffljer
ixajuries and even fractures.
E3. E§eccmdl3:*, me deégfar, vjéha before the
Commissianer and ujhfii ir:s:1e£i . the disability
certificgates _A and P4?’ respectiveiy, was
not the’ r::xamiz1ed the respective
appljpaflts, tfie {ioctor Wm Heated the appiiwnts
‘égvasvwizaf s§;j;;a mine<:i befora tbs Commissioner.
61.} Elefect to ba naticed in the impugned arcier
._af the Csmmissioner is that, though thfi Insurance
smight permissian to examine thé itwo
K :V”.’a;ipiicants by angther docter, ftha said appiication was
rejecteé by the Commissioner 02:: 23.11.2805.
}/
1 9′
7″ For the aforesaid reasons, I dc: find enmzgh fofce in
the Submissians made by ‘€116 iearned counse1″*fLéi*._jt£1e
appellant that the firming 01″ the ‘
regards the loss of eaxniflg ¢a§aacity_” V
C()I1C€:I’1″i€d is perverse and confiégsfy “tI1e:”t*é§ijas .v<:{..):'1t%:Ii3.t':'t~:~ ._
cf the F.I.R. and, in "
certificates fmm the atv–$ir%;~ having
been produced. there fares: in Lhfi
submission ‘by “f:V§’3.1nsei that the
respective ::’§§p§:€ar to have been
n1anipL13at€ciT; erder t0 get higlier
campezzisatiozx. _ V’ V’
8. fifsdgfir ‘?t11:e’ above’ circumstances, I am of the View
2 V ‘*:};a.i:_ L”i;§: é«cC0r<iiI}g3y, bath the appeais are aiicwad anti the
–. im§;ug1e<_°£ erder of the £f2en1missim3e1' is set aside and
~ 41.315: Inattar is remanded to the {";ommissi.r3ne:r for fresh
corzsiderajicm anzi fresh asseasmem of the 10:35 af
:
s
L
‘a
eamling capacitf,»-2 Both parties are at liberty to agiéuce
fuflher evidence in their supper: and thereaft:%£:*;_:t;’)e
Qammissioner shall dispose of the matter ‘
months from the date: of receipt of~thisA {)I.”f.’Ci.gV(.”‘,”iv’V’,” ” 4
The amount in deposit?i9§éf1’it:ri€d.»V
appeliant.