Shri Mallikarjun vs The Divisional Manager on 16 September, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 65]

Karnataka High Court

Shri Mallikarjun vs The Divisional Manager on 16 September, 2009

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAK}§, 
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

BEFORE

DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF  

MFA 3530.41

BETWEEN

SHRIMALLIKARJUN S /o.z%i.a (3--ANN;tx ;;ARA:<;AHALL:
AGE: 28 YEARS, 00: EX--QRI'V,ER,_ * ~ % 

R/0.ARA_B M::}mLLA,V%VCIRCLE RAICHUR,
AT PRESENT NA\?'ANA GAI{._ BAGALKOT,
DIST: BAGALK{3T.'* ,1  Y

 V ~ ' A  APPELLANT

(B1f.;S}€£..CH;3xIVfI) R}XSI;§EI.{HAR P. PATEL, ADVOCATE.)

_ A~1\If} % _ _  
X  '}'§i*Ev)v"DI*»?l§'SIONAL MANAGER,

.   INSURANCE CO., L'I'I}., BELGAUM,
 l:?EST:«--"'BELGAUM.

   2) ":-31}:*RI.AB1m:, KHADAR

A  S/CLSYED MOHAMED ASIMPEER,

V'   AGE: MAJOR, OWNER OF THE LORRY,

R/CLANDRON KHILLA, RAICHUR.
 RESPGNDENTS

(BY SRI..P.H.PAWAR, ;:fVOCA'E'E FOR RESPONSENT
N01.)

9

THE HON' BLE MR. JU  A  & kk



2
THIS MFA IS FILED U/S 30(1) OF W.C. ACT,
PRAYINC: TO MC}{)IFY THE ORDER] JUDGMENT DATED
06/ 12/2007 PASSED BY THE WI). COMM§SSI.;.NE}?,
BAGALKOT EN CASE 130.233/2006.   

'1?-11s MFA COMING ON FOR A}3MIS'Si*{)§J...'._fiiiiiﬁ

DAY, THE comm' DELIVEREB THE FOLi,O--W'ING¥: =  _   

The claimant  is  béibfe  Court

seeking enhancement-..z§f £11:-5; cgztipgzaﬁation as against the

gum  tﬁ€'«'..,V__C<)I7n;t¥.'1issi{)z1er for Work1:ne11's
campensasion -if: Nc:s.233/2006 dated 0642-

20§)f? Thea "»Cg§§Iﬁ111§ssioner has awarded the tctal

  f  of §s.A2,26,044/...

   leamad counsel for the claimant.

 coritexiéigd that. the Csmmissiensr was not justiﬁed in

A   the income only at 233,500/-. It is further

V.   Véontended that, even the percentage of disability

reckoned by the Commissioner is on the lower side and if

i

"r



these two aspects are noticed and reetiﬁed, the"

would be entitled to higher r:o§1pensa§0n.  

3) The learned counébl    T

however seeks to _iustiI'y: ﬁle &'a,§%?ard   ,

Commissioner. It is centeﬁdeﬁ' that;  egbsence of
evidence the nermai   notional
basis. With re_ga:r*d ~-'Iearned counsei
would co111;Ve?_i:v14ciA  on taking note of
the evideegﬁ doctor has analyzed
the   pereentage of loss of earning
capacity  same does not admit of any
 1 .4 . ._ 

  6!}   --the light of What has been eoxzterzded, a

13'e.;*i1eai Aeafi award woulé indicate that with regard to

 the "wage as claimed by the claimant the Commissioner

A 51' " i1ee"~e0nsidered the same Whiie deciding point No.2 which

eras raised for consideration. The claimant; has

contended that he was being paid a sum of Rs.4,{)00/~.

The respondent had however dispilted the same. The

J "t Commissioner has thereaﬁer reckoned the Wage at Rs.3,500/---. No doubt in the absence of notionai income keeping in View the avoce.tidh--' the claimant would have to be ée£em1_ii1ed;"'I1'3* ease there is no reasons assigned by However What requires to is "eiei:ma1"rtw L' was a driver in a 10113; 'as e1';1:1'ie'eda:te ef.fhe-ace.ii:ient. The accident had occurred _{j)ur1'ng the said period a dri\afe:.f:'i3fi a V._fiéa.\re"'1Jeen paid much higher' shat wouid have been paid to a dfi3rer"_ in Therefore keeping these aspects .t%iew_it. ivzagmzd be appropriate to reckon the '~ _ fr-per month.

3 T. far as the disability, the doctor has been exatiminediigefere the Commissioner. The said aspect has been eoiisiciered while deciding point No.3. 11; is :10 doubt u"Vi.i;1*L1e:i.=i:11za"t the doctor en referring to the nature of injuries the treatment had stated that, if his leg is to be amputee the disability eould be eensidered at 80%. 'S There is nothing on record to indicate the amputation has taken place. Further there is on reeard to indicate that the claimant is.V1§et.. ' his duties as a driver. Therefore '1th€{Se. in View the loss of ea1Tﬂng.eapacit3r_}at = *' the Commissioner eaxmot be as 621*: <:2tjier.)51,1sL§

6) Therefore the" "ehas;rgckoned by this Court is kept =.zi_,ew;_'éi:id't;I1e'1t§s.s_ of ing capacity as deterxxlixlesci' » is retained and the the eiaimant would be entitled to the of Rs.2,58,336/~. Since the Co;1_;1ii1issione1"A. __ }1as' aiready awarded 3. sum of the claimant would be enﬁtleci to the of Rs.32,292/ ~.

" E. With regard to the gent of iﬂterest by the Eﬁetfgmissioner, that would have {e M modiﬁed by K M fxoldirzg that the claimant woulci be entitled to the interest at 7.5% from the date of the accident til} the date of award and thereafter at 12% til}, the amount is paid by i the insurance company. The manner of interest as "stated wouid be admissible for the total CO1}Jp€I}SatiQif_l_ the amotmt which has been awardfﬁl If-'j's_ Commissioner.

8) The enhanced be deposited by the of six weeks from the éiate écopjfvvéf order. On deposit the same the claimant.

9) In étsrms :<3f°t4'2§: _sb}:«ye,'- the appeal stands disposed of. Casts.

JUDGE s sssssss%sTWk/é '

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court