{"id":195963,"date":"2010-01-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010"},"modified":"2017-05-10T12:50:30","modified_gmt":"2017-05-10T07:20:30","slug":"the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010","title":{"rendered":"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010<\/div>\n
Author: Aravind Kumar<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT\nDHARWAD.\n\nDATED THIS THE 8% DAY OF JANUARY 2010\nPRESENT\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KL\u00a7l'.4E..\ufb01.iR<_ ' \n\nMiscellaneous First Appeal No. I3:"59b1,,pf: 240\n\nBetween :\n\nThe Oriental Insurance\nCompany Ltd.,\n\nRegional Office\n\n44-45, Leo Shopping Com\nResidency Road,\nBanga1ore~56O 025, V\n\nIts Administrative Q:\ufb01ic_er. f\n\npi'e_).:' _' \n(By Sri. Arunei 13\u00e9\u00bbs43;1;iig{:1-;ie'vrc\u00a7; .3: .g_ris:..he;3;ia, Adv.)\n\nAnd :\n\n.~ , Koiagailu\n\nRamanna  _\n\nS\/0. Doddappa .\n\nAged 26 years}, _\nR\/o. Sfzuhyavani Nagar';\nRcjad, A'\n\nBeilaiy.\n\n  d  \nS','.Q Q ' 'V_eer\u00e91bh~a4_draj:315a\nMajor,'  \nOwner. of \ufb01aiitor\n\n'No. KA :7\/5071,\n\nickshaw\n\n ' " - __ R\/AOT Sathyairani Nagar,\n\n'V V' V. :E3e11'ary:\n\n... Respondents.<\/pre>\n
—   Ravi.D. Hosamani for Lakshmikanth Reddy for R-1)<\/p>\n
  gay’ Sri. Veeresh.B. Patil for R-2)<\/p>\n
… Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
This Miscellaneous First Appeal is fiied u\/s. 30(1) of WC.
\nAct against the order dated. 28\/02\/2004 passed in W,”C-._ No.
\n114\/2002 on the \ufb01le of the Labour Officer and Cornmissio_iier~i.for
\nWorkmen’s Compensation, Sub D\u00a3vision–2, Bellary, part_ly _a1iqwed<\/p>\n
and awarding compensation of R’s.1,10,208\/~ with in.teresti.a’t–._1i7Z?o’
\np.a. and directing the appellant herein to pay the same .within*3Q <\/p>\n
days from the date of order.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal coming on for hearingthis.dayi;:C.o-uft irnade
\nfollowing: —   ” \u00bb A   <\/p>\n
JU1)Gi\\rll:i?\u00ab.v;1\u00a7j_1fV_
\nThe insured is questioning thei.eoirreetness.aridlegality of the
\norder passed in WC.   it  Commissioner,
\nWorkmen’s Comp’ensatioij~;.,’.   Bellary<\/p>\n
d:c1.2s\/02\/2004,    ~ ‘<\/p>\n
2. Thevifacts   follows~<\/p>\n
The rani\u00ab;’=oi” partli’es’i”a’s before the Commissioner for
\nWorkmen4’sCompensation, are being referred in this appeai for the
\n of .\u00a2\u00a7nv\u00a2iii\u00a2e  ‘<\/p>\n
 Rarnanna workin as a driver of auto–rickshaW<\/p>\n
V’vv:_AAi’llEv3learing No. E__{A-li”7A\/6071 beionging to one Sri.S. Veeraiah had<\/p>\n
 the said :auto–ricl<shaw on 12\/01\/2002 and while returning<\/p>\n
i""frorri't,he..viilage at about 4 p.m. to avoid collision with the Vehicle<\/p>\n
coming from the opposite direction in front of the Engineering
\ncollege gate, Airport road, Bellary, took a left turn of the auto<\/p>\n
rickshaw on account of which he lost control over the veh4iele'-.ai:d<\/p>\n
turned turtle and fell down, as a result it was <\/p>\n
sustained fracture of his left hand and other in_iuries:fan'd.: tooled' <\/p>\n
treatment in a Private hospital.\n<\/p>\n
4. On account of the injuries sustained, ia..claim.Ipeti’tion “was i<\/p>\n
\ufb01led as referred to supra claiming”r\u00abi.;a’. tota]i”corn\u00a7i\u00a7ensation of
\nRs.-4,00,000\/-. On service of’f1Q’\u00a3icei’ither-iizn\u00e9i-ii’respondentdnsured<\/p>\n
\ufb01ied its statement of objections denyin’g’t}ie a}fer_inen_ts made in the<\/p>\n
claim petitioijiiiniitotojgv ‘l’l’:ii\u00a5,:4iiisdri:..i.:andlstiljstance of said objections
\nwas that, cornplainti  13 days from the date of
\naccident, no _woLi1n’d g_certificia*tei’iiad been produced, Doctor, who
\nis;s;i1e\u00abd_  certi’fi~c–a’te has not treated the claimant and<\/p>\n
there.  d’isahi’iity’*to the injured. Before the Commissioner for<\/p>\n
l ifs’–iW,ori<rne1ifs'Cornpcnsation, the claimant got himself examined and<\/p>\n
veuxaminedione Dr. Lakshmi Narayana and got marked Ex.A~\u00bb~1<\/p>\n
'fto  herespondent examined its Manager and got marked the<\/p>\n
  loolicy. During the pendency of the proceedings before<\/p>\n
the Commissioner for Worls:men's Compensation, an application<\/p>\n
came to be \ufb01led by the insured under Sec. 23 of the <\/p>\n
Compensation Act r\/ W. Rule 34 of the Karnataka <\/p>\n
Compensation Rules seeking thereunder a direction" to \ufb01ne 'insurer ' <\/p>\n
to produce the required evidence of witnesses.f?as1,al-so" retfai_re.d it<\/p>\n
documents, the said application carr'ie.__to ber_ejected."b;:{Aa'n Order <\/p>\n
dtd. 21\/ 02\/ 2004 on consideration  _rivall'claims advanced
\nbefore it. The Commissionerioi\ufb02worlrrtilenisfiompensation by his
\nOrder dtd. 28\/ O2 \/ 2OO4lV'ordered_v:for bifjvcompensation of
\nRs. 1, 10,208\/\u00ab\u00ab toget\u00a7_ieri'ip;;vQiVth is payable by the 2nd
\nrespor1dent–   avvard, which has been
\nassailed by    It is seen from the
\norder sheet that  be admitted and since by order
\ndtd. 28\/ l02VOO4li4l;o\\V7_verVC–ou'iit reicords had been called for and is
\navai'lable  file, thAe"m'a*tter is taken up for final hearing by the<\/p>\n
consent" i.le–ar1;.e'd.;icounsel appearing for the parties. The<\/p>\n
i iit"AA__appellantphas raisedtizthe following substantial question of law for<\/p>\n
considered and answered in favour of the appellant. The<\/p>\n
5 same 'reads. as follows-\n<\/p>\n
Whether the appellant is liable to satisfy the<\/p>\n
 “‘a”u2ard made by the Commissioner for Workmen’s<\/p>\n
Compensation, when the disabiemenzf suffered by the
\nclaimant\/ respondent No.1 was neither permanent nor<\/p>\n
partial disabiement.\n<\/p>\n
5. I have heard Srnt. Aruna Deshpande, ”\n<\/p>\n
appearing for the appellant and Sri.
\ncounsel appearing for Sri.Y. Laleshmilclanlthl Retl.d;rl:v”forll
\nrespondent in this appeal. It is contelnlciied by the_le’af.t-ietlfcounsel
\nfor appellant as folloWs– V ‘A l\n<\/p>\n
(i) The accident in question 01\/2002 and<\/p>\n
the complaint hdstbeen  and there is<\/p>\n
no explanation  the delay in \ufb01ling<\/p>\n
the comlplaiptAandyh_e:nC\u00a2”on ground the bona\ufb01des of the
\nclaimant cannot  <\/p>\n
{ii} The claimantllllhalclpplnot procluced the wound certi\ufb01cate and<\/p>\n
  the disability by a Doctor, who has<\/p>\n
Aexan_1ined.:V’th.e claimant, subsequently is of no relevance.<\/p>\n
7,_(i’i’i)= The Qoctor,  issued the disability Certi\ufb01cate Ex.A–6 is<\/p>\n
3″-‘\u00ab\u00ab___ln.ot a O1ft_h’opedic Surgeon and as such he is incapable of<\/p>\n
  llcertlfylhg the disability. ‘3%””‘<\/p>\n
{Vi}<\/p>\n
 .  iiilfasir & z\u00e9iriother reported in 2009 AIR SCW 3717. I<\/p>\n
It is contended that the Doctor, who has issued the disability<\/p>\n
certificate has to speak about the disability of the infrared<\/p>\n
and certify the proportionate loss of earning Capa_Qi_Ljy’.i(i):f V.
\ninjured and it is based only on the said opinionas per:
\nclause-C of sub–section (i) of Section iofthie <\/p>\n
quantum of compensation can be “asisessedr ‘and’<\/p>\n
otherwise.\n<\/p>\n
In support of the said eo-riptentiondiJudgrrient of
\nthis Court in the case   Patil and
\nothers us. Erappq\ufb01fasappa  reported in<\/p>\n
ILR 2004 KARi”‘],’9:i:at paiifaa  is..’prlessedminto service.<\/p>\n
It is also  Commissioner for Workrr1er1’s
\nCompensation has.”a_jwardeid’\u00ab.12% interest to be deposited<\/p>\n
within one   date of award for the period of<\/p>\n
 “a,fteri..thei,.A’lapse of orie”‘irionth from the date of accident and<\/p>\n
   law laid down by the Hon’bIe Supreme<\/p>\n
Court in _theIp_case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. :2. Mohd.<\/p>\n
6. Per contra, Sri.Ravi.D. Hosarnani, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
respondent\/claimant would contend that mere delay in filing’-.the<\/p>\n
complaint is not fatal for making a claim for <\/p>\n
compensation under the WC. Act. He would also subrnit jtb.at’ M<\/p>\n
medical records of Karnataka Medical Colf_e”ge*had <\/p>\n
which has been examined by the Cornmiissianer for __.Wor1:;rr;e’n_fs”i<\/p>\n
Compensation and based on this reco:r”d~.V_andi.Val.so’  of
\nthe x~ray taken on the date of  accident’,-.the_dis.ability cdrti\ufb01cate
\nviz., EX.A~6 has been issued and issued Ex.A–
\n6 has not only been \u00e9examinediibyhiibut also been
\ncross-examined  urged by the<\/p>\n
appellant herein.  withstood the cross”\n<\/p>\n
examination and award of the Commissioner does
\nnot call for: ir1’\u00a3\/’?l’feri:?..1:V”(”:01V.’17\u00a71”l’. reported in the matter of Sn’. Aieemuddin and Others vs.<\/p>\n
The Divisional Manager, M\/s New India Assurance Co., Ltd,<\/p>\n
Gulbarga in ILR 2009 14.22 and accordingly submits that the<\/p>\n
question of law formulated in this appeal is required;’*.tlov,:l::ev<\/p>\n
answered against the appellant and in favour of the  .<\/p>\n
and accordingly the appeal be disrnissedh _ :-1a:.\u00ab1’n’g’ v”the\u00bbe.: <\/p>\n
learned counsel appearing for the parties, it  <\/p>\n
extract the relevant portion of the .C.  for of<\/p>\n
convenience.\n<\/p>\n
7. Section 3, which is an.enab&l.ing–proV’is_ion fora workman<\/p>\n
to claim compensation reads as follows.;_  <\/p>\n
3.:._#vEmploye.r’s for hconipensation — (1) l_’f
\npersonalhinjuryl   workman by accident
\narising out lofuand    of his employment, his
\nemployer _shall  Vllial\u00e9le to pay compensation in<\/p>\n
‘l V’ “a.cco’;=dan;ce with the proaisions of this Chapter:<\/p>\n
    ;r\u00e9ro.ia:ig\u00e9ii ,:-hat the employer shall not be so liable-
\nl’ _h{a)  of any injury which does not result
\n z  the total or partial disablement of the<\/p>\n
Vuusorlcman for a period exceeding (three) days;
\n ”   in respect of any [injury, not resulting in death
\nV’ (or permanent total disablement) caused by]<\/p>\n
an accident which is directly attributable to -~<\/p>\n
(gt<\/p>\n
{i} the workman having been at the time<\/p>\n
thereof under the in\ufb02uence of drink <\/p>\n
drugs, or y __g __\n<\/p>\n
(ii) the wilful disobedience of the worknugn re, <\/p>\n
an order expressly given, __or to a”\n<\/p>\n
expressly framed, fore <\/p>\n
securing the safety of workmen, or y’ A A\n<\/p>\n
(iii) the wilful removal–,or~,_disregard.’by
\nworkman of any safety guard’ orilother
\ndevice which_”‘i~..he  been
\nprovided for   the
\nsc1fei3rb’3J’j_luorkiiiari.:\/it A’ *t t _–
\nSection 4 (1) to) as follo.uis–‘-.\n<\/p>\n
4, :.Amoun’tIo_f co}*npens\u20ac’,tion —-<\/p>\n
(c) Wherel ligperinanentu in the case of an injury
\npartial disablement ‘resu_ltl’~~– specified in Part II of Schedule<\/p>\n
from\u00e9tghe irijury  __ L such percentage of the<\/p>\n
compensation which could
\nhave been payable in the case
\nof permanent total
\ndisablement as is specified
\ntherein as being the<\/p>\n
percentage of the loss of
\nearning capacity caused by
\nthat injury; and<\/p>\n
{ii} in the case of an injury not
\nspecified in Schedule I, such
\npercentage of the
\ncompensation payable in the
\ncase of permanent total<\/p>\n
(fg,.\/<\/p>\n
11<\/span><\/p>\n
Charge sheet at E:-<.A–2. It is stated in the deposition of the<\/p>\n
claimant that immediately on the occurrence of accident_rvhe"-was<\/p>\n
shifted to l\\\/[CH hospital at Bellary and as such he   _<\/p>\n
complaint before the jurisdictional police. ll"cross~–_.i <\/p>\n
examination there is no suggestion made to,thegsa.id' <\/p>\n
regarding delay in \ufb01ling the cornpla'i.nt. ll1't_ has
\nevidence that, on being admitted to  it treated as
\nMedico legal case and imrrie.di*a_te;l_y  i'..,info'rn'iationi from the
\nHospital Authorities, the policeA..ha_vey jyease as is found
\nfrom the cross\u00bbexaIirii4n\u00a7:A2'tlonfoef   30\/12\/2003.
\nHence, the  for appellant that the
\ndelay in  be  cannot be accepted and<\/p>\n
accordingly the said  hereby rejected.\n<\/p>\n
 9. Ree-.eclontention_.:No. ‘2 :– It is contended that wound<\/p>\n
ceirti_f1(:a:te.,  been produced itself goes to show that<\/p>\n
 claimanti”had” ‘suffered any injury and the injuries now<\/p>\n
 propounded byvihiizil in the disability certificate are concocted and is<\/p>\n
 to beconsidered for being brushed aside for the reason<\/p>\n
i”<:.that._lthe"'Miedico Register Extract has been produced by the<\/p>\n
elairn-ant before the Commissioner of Workmen's Compensation<\/p>\n
Q9,"\n<\/p>\n
12<\/span><\/p>\n
and the nature of injuries found at the time of admissions is noted<\/p>\n
in the said register, the same being an attested copy i.e., attested<\/p>\n
by the Medical Superintendent, Medical College Hospital”, <\/p>\n
cannot be said to be concocted as is canvassed’ it-ii1’Efi\ufb01” ii<\/p>\n
Commissioner for Workrnen’s Corripens-ation. p
\naccepting the same. Though a feeble atteiniptighas
\nthe learned counsel for appellant
\nwhich is said to be one of the \ufb01nd”ai..pla_cie in the
\nsaid exhibit, viz., Ex.P~\u00bb5, i.ei,ii”l’.iledico_vgiQegal*iiReigi*ster Extract, by
\nitself cannot be a ground. to  there was no<\/p>\n
fracture for the obvious  at the.._4–tirfne of “admission it would<\/p>\n
not be possib:leiiitoi_i   having occurred by
\nphysical \u20acX:’31I’i)i_i”1’i\u00abjr~\/;v.&1i;l(‘)VI1.’  on the detailed clinical
\nexamination that  doctcrrsiiwould be able to assess as to whether
\ntlrie\ufb01rie’-.areiiiinjuries like clotting of the blood or the<\/p>\n
fractiu\u00a7e”‘ifi_ai1.}f,”-viih\u00bbich_can be noticed. A perusal of the said exhibit<\/p>\n
 A-Slit  see.n,l:ii.i,l*ie Doctor has opined that the fore–arm of left<\/p>\n
..i_ih.and.there is a ‘swelling and requires to be x–rayed and it is this in<\/p>\n
 thekclairnant contends where fracture has occurred.<\/p>\n
i” i.E’m__otheri;aspect which requires to be considered for rejecting the<\/p>\n
I3<\/p>\n
contention of appellant in this regard is the X–ray film produced at<\/p>\n
E3X.A–7, which was taken on the same day of the accident. T.h”is.gX–<\/p>\n
ray also having been scrutinized and analysed by the  3<\/p>\n
issued the Disability Certi\ufb01cate, has spoken about  <\/p>\n
having occurred. Hence, the contention of’n_on–p.ro.duction5of<\/p>\n
Wound certificate is fatal to the claim petition islliablee. <\/p>\n
rejected and accordingly it is r6jected.i”–vs.:<\/p>\n
10- wWRe____a.,m..___’\u00b0\u00b0ntenti\u00b0n N0-‘ 377 it  thatiiiDocto1’, Who<\/p>\n
issued the Disability Certi\ufb01cate not treated the<\/p>\n
claimant and as is tS~__ub;n–i..tted. llt’hjat,_.Dijsability Certi\ufb01cate<\/p>\n
cannot be ar:cepLeldtiandifit i’s.i_reiquired”‘to be rejected. On re-
\nappreciation  the  Doctor, it is found that the
\nauthor of ‘EX.Pti-\u20ac}\u00ab_Vl3\u20acili1igI Lakshminarayana, has been
\ne;<arnined_':*t1siE_t;.Vv'.2i.ia'nd___hev has stated in his evidence about<\/p>\n
clinically 'and..phy'sic'al.ly examining the claimant before issue of the<\/p>\n
Certifiicate–…i' iHeii."_Spe'ciifically states that, on 21\/11\/2003 he has<\/p>\n
ill_exarninedil'Sri;*f\u00a7aniianna S\/o. Doddappa, aged about 25 years for<\/p>\n
.edisai'o'i1ity assessment. He also states that said person<\/p>\n
ii'–.:_iipresented hirnself for being physically examined and after having<\/p>\n
14<\/span><\/p>\n
examined the said person, found on such examination certain
\ndisability, which by his own words reads as under-<\/p>\n
On examination today his other external
\nwere healed up, the operation site showed the
\nhealthy scar of 10 cms in size with wasting’*~of:l~the~l:: <
\nmuscles around the region due to
\nmass is reduced by 3 cms due to which  inouexiientS ii
\nof supination, pronation, latera3ii_ro.tatiori'ahd'Vhooh
\nare reduced which are essential'f_o'r' _manlagirig' 'lAu:t:-Q,
\nthusimpeded ofhisprofes\ufb01ion.     'V\n<\/p>\n
11. it has come on recordiiths_a’t,iithle  has not only<\/p>\n
physically and clinically’ ‘exarriine\u00a7:1_:;tl1Q\u00a2’\u00ab,glaima::ti; but has also<\/p>\n
veri\ufb01ed the earlieri’i’reeords,iof\u00e9iclaimant”pertaining to the earlier
\nperiod and oni’\u00abperusi1ig.’ol’.a1l–~._thes’e materials, has issued the
\ndisability certivficateif lilence, tvheiciontention of learned counsel for<\/p>\n
ap_pell*ant  .l:1\u20ac’l_”Cby~. rej ected”. “” ” ‘V
\n l2,,i’Re-e.or.texV1fio_n No. 4 82’. 5 :— It is contended by learned<\/p>\n
 counsel  as per sub~–clause(2) of clause (0) of sub-<\/p>\n
section (1).i”of ‘Section (4) of Workmen’s Compensation Act, the<\/p>\n
{D.hoCtorV\u00bbwEaIo<_isslied the physical disability certificate ought to have<\/p>\n
 .\n<\/p>\n
correlated the injury to the incapacity of the injured to carry on the<\/p>\n
same profession and this aspect having not been spoken to by'”..th(i’<\/p>\n
Doctor, the Commissioner was in error in awarding compens’a.ti*on’..<\/p>\n
under the heading– Loss of income. Accordingly, it isiconteridiedii’ ii<\/p>\n
that the award of the Commissioner for W-orkmen’s Co41’npensat_i:onii7..<\/p>\n
be rejected. In this regard, the eiecis-_ion of<\/p>\n
Shivanagouda Pan”! and others vs.  Basappa.il3lhai)iil?taia and
\nothers, referred to supra is pressed intyo——se’i*viceyAas aliso..th\u00a2,.i~elevant
\nprovision of the Act. Sectionili\ufb02r  the amount oi
\ncompensation payableunder    is subject to<\/p>\n
the other provision-s’\u00bb.of* injury. in. Question is a non-<\/p>\n
scheduled    that the injury has
\nresulted in permanent  and there cannot be any
\ndispute thatany  compensation in so far as the
\n cyoncernediiioif ‘sub clause (2) of clause (C) of the section
\n1  the said injury.\n<\/p>\n
13 N-ow what is required to be examined in the instant case<\/p>\n
its whether iitlweingredients of clause 2 are satis\ufb01ed for the claimant<\/p>\n
;toiqua1iiyih4imself to make a claim to award under this clause, the<\/p>\n
 — ‘
\n“7<\/p>\n
compensation. Subwclause {2) speaks about the compensation<\/p>\n
payable in the case of permanent total disablernent as”-_is<\/p>\n
proportionate to the loss of earning capacity, requi;:esi’\u00bbto’3<\/p>\n
assessed by the qualified Medical Practitioner. In the ir:.s_:tavrj1ti.casei’, <\/p>\n
in order to establish that there has beeriiiia”‘permaneiitpartiiali’<\/p>\n
disability on account of the injuries sustairiediiri. the a_ecid.ent; <\/p>\n
claimant has produced Ex.A–6. Thie-\u00e9ijraetents   Certit’icate
\nreads as follows-\n<\/p>\n
This is to certifgi’ that’ learngaizna S\/o.
\nDoddappa aged about yearsl ifdriver by<\/p>\n
profession came”toifor\u00ab_PE- assessrnenteonsequent to<\/p>\n
RTA he  iiwasitreated initially at
\nVIMS and tater .e Mit:al””;Doctor and was further<\/p>\n
managed  rne   till date.\n<\/p>\n
.  epresentedivto rrie with swollen, tender Left
\n i i’m9rea’rin  X revealed # of both the bones of
\n its mid shaft region upon advise
\nunderwent fiijos’tr.hetic Implantation for both the bones.<\/p>\n
it _ He is”und__erphysiotherapy even now.
\n_ One\u00e9camination today his other external injuries
\nr~iwerei”‘–healed up, the operation site showed the e\/o
\n scar of 10 cms in size with wasting of the<\/p>\n
 muscles around the region due to which the muscle<\/p>\n
17<\/span><\/p>\n
mass is reduced by 3 cms due to which the movements
\nof supination, pronation, lateral rotation and hook grip
\nare reduced which are essential for managing Auto,VVt~~.!_i’t._
\nthus impeded of his profession. i, _ if _ H<\/p>\n
Considering the above facts, on venfyirtggii’  3
\ndocuments produced, on physical examination ‘
\nconsidering his occupation, I am of the   i
\nis of 35% with resultant decreasev”i_n:”.h.is earnings if 3<\/p>\n
capacity.\n<\/p>\n
14. The relevant portion” of thel”s’aiti’oVp’inion of'”ti’1e’V4Doctor,<\/p>\n
which was based on both clinical’  examination of<\/p>\n
claimant is as follows-_ <\/p>\n
were healed.iiuppgthei,operation jsite showed the e\/o
\nhealthy scar of  with wasting of the
\nmuscles aroli’\u00e9\u00ab’fi1iq’v,r\u00e9\ufb01ioniiidue to which the muscle
\nmass._\u00a7isiVreduced’  cms due to which the movements
\naVof.siipinantion,pronation, lateral rotation and hook grip
\nare are essential for managing Auto,<\/p>\n
that s ‘impeded-. of: his profession.\n<\/p>\n
“15. Bas.eti\u00ab;_on this observation made at the time of physical<\/p>\n
 7e’Xa_rn\u00a3inatiVo”r1~., of the claimant, the Doctor has come to the<\/p>\n
 ‘dc-onicllosiion that permanent partial disablement was to the extent of<\/p>\n
 4<\/span><\/p>\n
18<\/span><\/p>\n
35% with resuitant decrease in his earning capacity. it is__._this<\/p>\n
aspect which has been enunciated by their Lordships<\/p>\n
Shivaiinga Pati1’s case supra, wherein it is held in Heactnotie <\/p>\n
the following effect-\n<\/p>\n
(D) WORKMEIWS COMPENSAFFION e \/icizb A1′  ” <\/p>\n
(AMENDMENT ACT’ op” 1 984) — vc}o1APT\u00a3;–.\u00abz~2_ iI~– sceH:3:oLE’ Z<\/p>\n
1 AND IV \u00bb\u00bb SECTION 19 — Detennhiination “of the   it
\nearning capacity —-~ Has to be byt_.reife.rei’zce to’t’he.V_worik
\nwhich the workmen was A;b”e:ffor–ri1in5gVla’t.__the’~time of the
\naccident or by reference to his other
\nwork after he has  L HELD —-~
\nDetermination’_oj’f.”,Vthe”io_ss   has to be
\nwith reference  the workman
\nwas capable  thehh\ufb01rnve of the accident
\nresultingivitn such  not withreference to the
\nwork whic’h..thetAworIerrtar: berfonning at the time of
\naccident._ Howeoer, .this”\u00e9sVsizbject to the condition that
\n  thegcase the iworlgman establishes by acceptable
\n   _thiat.iafter the inquiry not only he is not able to<\/p>\n
  ‘   he was performing before the<\/p>\n
accident  not able to do any other work, the<\/p>\n
. loss ofeainingihicapacity could be assessed on the basis<\/p>\n
it ” ” 1 it” — pfsuch evidence.  \u00bb—‘*””\n<\/p>\n
19<\/span><\/p>\n
16. In View of this medical evidence available on record, I am<\/p>\n
of the considered opinion that workman has produced acceptable<\/p>\n
evidence that he is not able to do the work which he <\/p>\n
hitherto and thus resulting in the loss of earning capacity <\/p>\n
based on the said evidence. In view of the”sarr1c., ‘the conte.1_ition?ofi\ufb01<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the appellant is herebyiii’eje’cted. T<\/p>\n
17. In so far as re–contentioniil\ufb01lo.    it is
\ncontended by the learned  forapp’e1_l_ant=that tlieiiaward of
\ninterest at the rate of 12.80\/o   after the
\ndate of accident is   down in Oriental<\/p>\n
Insurance Company.;:casereferijedto isupra and accordingly<\/p>\n
submits that the -.pend’e:.1te:’lite”iritere’st at 7.5% is liable to be paid
\nto claimant. The’al_earne’d  appearing for respondent does
\nnotvpcrossppsswords on-. issue with the learned counsel for<\/p>\n
appellant and  thisextent the appeal requires to be allowed.<\/p>\n
18,i.Tliei.award’p:ini so far as grant of interest to the extent of<\/p>\n
ii7_l2.E>’?\/o is  to 7.5% as held by their Lordships in the case of<\/p>\n
, Oriental insurance Company case referred to supra, which would<\/p>\n
 .i_t’i.lli”vthe’iexpiry of 30 days after passing of the awards and<\/p>\n
there-afterwards the rate<\/p>\n
20<\/span><\/p>\n
of interest as awarded by the<\/p>\n
Commissioner i.e., 12% is af\ufb01rmed. In View of the abovefthe<\/p>\n
following order is passed:\n<\/p>\n
(17\n<\/p>\n
(ii)<\/p>\n
(iii)<\/p>\n
(iv)\n<\/p>\n
(v)<\/p>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
The appeal is allowed in part.\n<\/p>\n
The substantial questionof Iaw__ jirantedfgereire’. Vt
\nabove is answered againsttlfte appeIlant1aVnd._:inV <\/p>\n
favour of the 15′ respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The award Citd. O2\/2C{.O-f}  by the
\nLabour Officer and ACOsfT_\u00a2mzs;sVictne’r’foVr-~:..Workmen’s
\nCompensation,:’Su.7\u00e9A\u00a2ditrision’~r;oT};_’~. in W.C.
\nNo.   ‘..or;T1;,~ to the extent of<\/p>\n
irltcrest  exj\ufb01tarined herein’ ‘above.\n<\/p>\n
Parties are direVCte’Civ\u00abto’t’bec.~r their respective costs.<\/p>\n
The aniount msd\u00e9p\u00e9siztt’ before this Court shall be<\/p>\n
.. rtirantsmitteei ” to “thee Labour O\ufb02icer\/ Commissioner<\/p>\n
V.Vwforfiii\/t5F3977″len’s Compensation, Sub–Division-JL<\/p>\n
V  V  <\/p>\n
I, A<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010 Author: Aravind Kumar IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD. DATED THIS THE 8% DAY OF JANUARY 2010 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KL\u00a7l’.4E..\ufb01.iR<_ ' Miscellaneous First Appeal No. I3:"59b1,,pf: 240 Between : The Oriental […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-195963","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-10T07:20:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Ramanna S\\\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T07:20:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3402,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010\",\"name\":\"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Ramanna S\\\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-10T07:20:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Ramanna S\\\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-10T07:20:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T07:20:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010"},"wordCount":3402,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010","name":"The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-10T07:20:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-oriental-insurance-company-vs-ramanna-so-doddappa-on-8-january-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Oriental Insurance Company … vs Ramanna S\/O Doddappa on 8 January, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195963","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=195963"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/195963\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=195963"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=195963"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=195963"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}