High Court Karnataka High Court

United India Insurance Company … vs Lakshminarayana S/O Gollara … on 13 September, 2010

Karnataka High Court
United India Insurance Company … vs Lakshminarayana S/O Gollara … on 13 September, 2010
Author: Aravind Kumar
: 1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHRAWAD
DATED THIS THE 13'?" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2010

 

BEFORE

HOINFBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND  " 

M.F.A. No.8713/2005 (WC; 

cm.  _ 
1VI.F.A. No.8714/2095 IWQ}  "   "

IN MFA.87I3/2005[WC)

BETWEEN:

UNITED ENDIA INsuzzagxlCE,Ac'm~.éj?-ANY. LIMI«TE'D"V'
BELLARY DIVISION,   _    
THROUGH ETS REGIC)NA;_L <,);?1?1c:E:__ATf_»... " 

No.25, Sm.;x;_;;ARA'N'A.RAY.ANA BLDG .,
M.G,ROAD;~%BA1<i;g_:.A'L--c)R1§:' :35a...r)o1 ,
REEF, BY 1T':3t;2EP1m( M.ANA(}ER,
M G'oP1NATH'AfR.Ac).C.»   ' '

= =     ...APPE.LLAN'I'
(By Sri. N. R."'E§UPPE'LUFE AQ'\_;.()cA'_rE FOR

SR1. B. C: SEETHARAMA mo ADVOCATE)

   1      
  L_,A1§s--H:N:..i:\:',z§R;{3YANA S/O GOLLARA ERANNA
" ._ ';Ag'}.E:'13.m£3<am*'3; YRS,
R,IA*1' }1'c'R(.)NI)§%1N1'S

(N{.)'I'1(.iE Tif} R1 H 1331,13 SU§53}<'§(Il¥?I§\§'lV' 'v'.('.f1.().§§ZJt'.;24,()3.12(f)EC);
I932 S13-El3\i'1'i§I7C} AN?) UNR}'f€I3'R §.*3S{_£iNT13)I})



 

I-J 

:2:

THIS MFA FILED U/S 30(1) OF WC. ACT A(.':AINS'I' 'I'I:%E
.,IUD(1-MEN?' AND ORIDICR I)AT'I3§D: ;2].7.;2005 I'ASE~3I3I) IN
CWC:WCA~1:NF:]6':}:(}3 ON 'I'I'IEZ FILE ()1? 'I'I--IE3 I.ABOIjR
OFFICER AND COIVEI\/IISSI{.)NIER I'(j>S1'__I* 'IS I.

IN MFA.8'714/ 2005['WC)

BETWEEN:

UNITED ENDIA INSURANCE r.:(.;~I:\/IIJANY I_.IIa/II'I'I3;Ij«~..f~' 
BELLARY DIVISION,    
'I'HR()U(3.H ITS REGIONAL ()E'.I?.'§_CI:Z MI'
No.25, SHANKARANIIXRAYANA £3i;i7)C':.;u_
M.G.R0AD, BAE\IGALO'F?E .5610 S011  'I
REP. BY ITS DEPUTY MA-NAc';E:I1>:;
M (}(f)PINATI¥A.RA().  - 
    _.     ...APPEI,LANT
(By Sri. N. R. II%A
AG;E1;24 YRS;   
I2/'}\'I" vALIvI§I"s;I ._cIRCLE:,
 1v-Sm WARD, FI()S'I'IFETE,
S « .I3'E:LLAR'-I. 

 . K'RI.SHN'A_I€I?§'£}"I)Y
'S/I) SANIMSIIIVA REZDDY
M"AI_It>_:2; R/'AT M .1 NA(}AR_,
, II0SPI«:§I'E:_, BELLARY I3IS'I.,
 I (QwNI«;I'2 OF III2I"ev NL).AP~2€v,/ uS;2.9e> 1.)
' '-  RE3SP(..)NI')EN'I'S

 __ "{I'~'§O'I§IC.I<3 TL) RE 1~~II%:LlL) SUFI4'I(;.IEN'I' V'.C.("i).[)t.2.4.03.'2{}10;

 R2 SERVED AND ifN'RI-CI3REL$EN'I'I¥3I))

'I'}*IIS NIIVA IS E:'4"§§.A'E--I:-'Sf,-3 LE';E% 30(1) {.')I*" W.C.. AC1' A(}iXIE\E§3'§"
'1"?! {C ...}'UII)CII'#Z IENT AN?) OR I') §E1'~? I.)A'I'I;'LIf3: 2 I I7.'2{.}()':'_a §"'5~'«.i*r}§'%II§C-I') IN
C'Jv'C:WC£-\---- I :NI5i'I ?'C):{.}3 {JN 'I'I~II_fl E.:\EE.J§.{: ("}I" 'I'II'I3) 1..-I"'II§£)LJR
0 F I31 (1 I33 I43 A N if) C. (J M. M I S S I ( ) N If) I? I<'( :} I? W {J R K M I31 N



 

existence after a gap of forty days from

the date of accident'?

(iii) Whether the findings given in the order  

and award are nerverse findings?

?. This Court, by order dated 24iO3:2iO1{}ha_S 

of notice on the respondents uriaimants} asVsi;.flicienit*. ilotice

Respondent No.2 has been serveci_r’a,nd he’ ‘nag.._re.i:i’ainéd

unrepresented.

8. Having heard the 1ea_1fn’e».:l_ advocates’–for__i.the appellant
as stated her€in~3tbi0’tf§1je;’ the sutistanitialitquestions of law

formulated above, _Vari:_se: foriconnsiideratiiaii “i:n”this appeal.

9. that accident in question had
occurred on in a lorry bearing
i§.q.AP–2e.,j:f;j;2961 at. 1 1.00 p.m., loaded with iron ore,
to Ballclota Plant, at Vyasanakere.

“Cii%:ill”:I”1a1’l§S, as pleaded in the claim petition, in
the saidii.acci»denvtiithey had sustained injuries to the entire body

it was. grievous in nature. At this juncture, it would be
to examine the medical records produced by the

it uclai-man.ts themselves to ascertain the truth or otherwise about
said contentions raised bj-‘ them. The two documents
pI’Dd’£}.{Z€d by the respective clairnams namely, the wound

certificates are at EZx.P~él» and §Z:~;.P~i4 respectivel}-* in the records

2″Eexte*rnal injuries were found heated up…… .

{=v}:11’cl’3 the tflai1m’1;’1%;.s 1’12-we st.:i’l’c:*i’c;*t:’l.

IN MFA NO.8’713/2005

“When the patient was presented he had

swolten tender left shoulder ioint with dislocation

and was on immoioitization cast, swollen tenVd’e_rV.
The X-rays taken

occipital region»

revealed no evidence of fracture. He.A”i3:-adAA«tVr:e”‘

signs of cerebral concussion and was trs-ate.d*f0r’*t.he«.

same over a period of time.”

on 15.o1.2oo4V,;gn m«y’c_eXamincavtien:,V iiisf

external injuries were fD_{i£’i~d healed uppgqt flforvthei

left shoulder dislocation. ‘

IN MFA: 3714/2oo’s..i__”§

“When the patihent was “p’resen_t’e’d he had

lacerated««p..wound_ over7th’e Al”eft”lowVeAr limb; painful,

1’ swoiien_Vrigh:’t4VVi’lia_c’region uliiiéi Haemarthrosis of right

‘fright’ _ilVeoiernera’i-.__p”joint and was treated

c’onserva’tiv’é¥y fohrthe same over a period time.

“05 ””’ examination on 15.12.2003, his

ii

._ flirt fibC?V*V::t3};t.)SS–€?X&1.IT2i{1£11.i()§”}, this witness has admitted

that X:ir”ei-1._\/s=,V:wititth V-‘\’L’.’§.’C said to have been i.ai<cn on cl;-1.i.1'z'ia;"iLs to
:'"v4."é»is's<;i.s::c__%;he""disability, were not available on :~cc1’d. He aiso
tziteat: he is not an o1’£tmp2-1c-r<t,c-rnt of ]Clt:?]'CIL.?§.}.{I.E:1§3;(' of (7i:'s:';11'i:ii§'t_\_»=,

'1'h<.: ('1;ii1'n:':ml in l'~./i}<":'\
N<i.87l3f2(){)5 has pro(.lL:t:'<..'=d <_m<.;: m.<'m: rtcrlit'i iii’1dc–*1″ the-*

Pt.

:11:

Hence, this Court is of the considered View that substantial
questions of law 1 and 2 require to be answered in the negative

in favour of the appellant by holding that Commissionersfor

Workmen’s Compensation, Subwdivision No. 1 1 «Bell__é1I;y?_,

Committed a serious error in not noticing t4he.se_:”‘VfaCt.s ._and”

substantial qL’:est.i()n of law No.3 formtjzlated iezlyo’-ge’:iAs’ =2’_11iiSw_eféV§:iT A’

in affirmative by holding that Cornrnissionenerrczdin
compensation payable to the elainiarits — and
?22,673/– respectively, eontraty asvviizvell as the

medical evidence available, which isiavpervefseffin_ding.

15. In view? tilytiie a-bo’-;’Le””di.seséission.,…:i”ollowing order is
passed:– M ii i i V
‘(Alf . MFA “Ni”os.’8–7oVii3i/2005 85 8724/2005 are
Vai§1.iied.”.b3ifi answering the substantial
qi.iestio.n’s of law in favour of the

ihappellant and against the respondents;

order and award passed by the

Commissioner for WOrkmen’s
Compensation, Subdivision No.1,

Bellary, in WCA Nos.l.69/2003 35
1’7()f:2003 dated. 21.07.2005 is hereby

lay

set: aside;

:12:

(iii) The claim pet:i1.i(ms filed by the

C1ai1m.11-its (Resporzderzt I herein) in WCAHW

Nc>s.zeac>/,2c:>o3 81. 1.70/2003 before the- “«« ‘~

Labmxr (.)l'”.!’icer and C0mmissi0nr3_.rf_

Workmen’s Compensation, Sub.¢§1iu\Ji.giO-xi”

No.1, Be-rllmy, are h€3I”€j1Dj,A-‘A>VC?1’i’€*2EfI1}.£i’a’S(3(_7}..f ‘<

(iv) The 2-L1mm:1ts in depC.Sit –._bef01fe’_ thii;
Court is c>rdered.__ t~:) be” paid to

appe1§ant’s on prop_¢_1:’ ‘§.ri_e;1_§i’fi.ca.{ionv;

(v) No OI’df;’§’ ago? v

(vi) Re’g«i.’st’_;r.y Id; dr;3.\§{«¢a\vaf€1japéofiiingly;

HEDGE