Karnataka High Court
M/S United India Insurance Co Ltd vs Sri Purushothama Gowda on 5 March, 2013
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.10138 OF 2008 (WC)
BETWEEN:
M/s. United India Insurance
Company Limited,
Divisional Office,
1st Main Road,
Prabhu Buildings,
Puttur, now represented by
Its Regional Office,
No.25, Shankaranarayana
Buildings, M.G.Road,
BANGALORE.
Represented by its Manager. .. APPELLANT.
(By Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, Adv.)
AND:
1. Sri.Purushothama Gowda,
Aged 25 Years,
Bin Ramanna Gowda,
R/o Katte Manjalumane,
Nelpadi Post,
Koukradi Village,
PUTTUR TALUK.
2. Ramanna Naik,
S/o Ithu Naik,
R/o 979/3,
Samathedka House,
Puttur Village and Post,
2
Puttur Taluk,
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
3. Rajendra.K,
Bin Ramdas,
Hotel Ananda Bhavan,
Kokkada,
Kokkada Village & Post,
Belthangadi Taluk,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST. .. RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri.Vishwanatha Poojary.K,
Adv. for R-1,
R-2 - Service held sufficient
vide order dated
29.02.2012)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*
This Appeal is filed under Section 30(1) of the
Workmen's Compensation Act, against the Judgment and
Order dated 14.05.2008 passed in WCA-SR-21/2006 on the
file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Sub-Division-2, Mangalore, awarding a
compensation of Rs.1,30,146/- with interest at 12% p.a.
This Appeal coming on for Admission this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Third respondent - Insurance Company in WCA No.21/2006 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mangalore, has come up in this appeal impugning the Judgment and Order dated 14.05.2008 sofaras it pertains to quantum of compensation. 3
2. The brief fact leading to this case are that, the claimant before the Commissioner was working as driver in lorry bearing No.KA-21/3252 belonging to first and second respondents and insured with third respondent before the Commissioner is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the claimant suffered injuries in a road traffic accident dated 19.03.2006 which has resulted in the course of his employment while driving the aforesaid lorry which is insured with third respondent before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation. It is further not in dispute that the claimant has suffered fracture of left clavicle in the aforesaid accident for which he was treated as inpatient in Unity Hospital, Mangalore, for 9 days and thereafter took follow-up treatment in Ashwini Hospital in Nellyady village.
3. In the proceedings initiated by him seeking compensation for the aforesaid injuries, the Commissioner on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to accept the accident and also the injuries 4 suffered by claimant and hold that the claimant has suffered 25% disability to his whole body, because of the injuries suffered in the aforesaid accident, which according to appellant is contrary to the evidence of P.W.2, Dr.Ajit K. According to appellant, P.W.2 has stated that the claimant has suffered 25% disability to particular limb. However, the Commissioner has taken whole body disability at 25%. Hence this appeal was admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law:
1. Whether the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mangalore, was justified in taking whole body disability at 25% contrary to evidence of P.W.2, Dr.Ajit K. ?
2. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded is in consonance with Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of Workmen's Compensation Act ?
4. Heard the counsel for appellant and as well as contesting respondent, claimant before the Commissioner. Perused the Judgment impugned with reference to the 5 grounds of appeal and also oral and documentary evidence available on record. On going through the same, it is seen that the accident is not in dispute, so also the injuries suffered by the claimant and the relationship of employee and employer between the first and second respondent and also the injuries suffered by the claimant in the course of his employment with first and second respondent. However, when it comes to percentage of disability that is suffered by claimant, the evidence of doctor is clear that the claimant has suffered limb disability to an extent of 25% and according to him claimant, who is driving lorry bearing No.KA-21/3252 has suffered disability to an extent of 25%. However, it is stated that there is some difficulty in driving the vehicle. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that there is permanent disability to certain extent and the same is not to an extent of 25% as taken by the Commissioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the partial permanent disability to the whole body at 10% and that the disability to continue the work of driver shall be taken at 12.5%. 6 Accordingly compensation awarded to the claimant will have to be re-assessed as under by taking the notional income at Rs.4,000/- and the relevant factor at 216.91:
2,400 x 216.91 x 12.5 = Rs.65,073-00 100 which he is entitled to receive with interest at 12% p.a., from the thirtieth date of accident till the date of deposit.
5. Accordingly the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed in part.
From out of the amount in deposit, modified compensation with interest as stated above is ordered to be sent to the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Mangalore, for disbursement of the same to claimant. If there is excess amount, the same shall be refunded to the appellant.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
AGV.