Karnataka High Court
National Insurance Co., Ltd Be vs Mastan & Anr on 13 November, 2008
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao, C.R.Kumaraswamy
IN THE HIGH COURT 0;? KARNATA.KA, I3AN§}:*::I;<"#§§'r§,'7"v..
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER; 2:Q{js§% * "
PRESENT
THE HONBLE MR. .JUsT:<:E 1<.~s:m;.E9H;:R*;w;a0
it
AND '
THE H(3N'BLE MR.,J£~,T.STI(3E"C';.R,f{{I§/iARASW}é.MY
M.F'.A.f~fCv'.'3'1{J;3[1§9'?f_»
BEQWEEN:
NATIONAL .ct:£§; "
BRANCH J ,
NO. 1 3.,;234, §A;¥Ggf%;LOE2 E 'i§O.A17)
BELLA§¥~s3s 10 %
(Reptci. By its %Ass"c.' Offurer
at Bagrigalcm Rtzgibnal Dfiioc
' " * «. No. 3&1, Subharam ~{;'--s111p1ex
M33. I?C}AD.
. APPELLANT
V_A gs'; SR1: M.U. PO{)NACHA~--ADV.)
"-.., '~AND:
MASTAN,
$/'o TAILOR MEHABOOB,
{MAJOR
A RESIDING AT COWL BAZAR,
NEAR MU'I"E'0N MARKET
BELLARY.
30/
:2. MR. KASAB MEHABOOB BASHA
MAJOR
RESIDING AT CAUL BAZAR
No.2 1/ 10, TENKAR STREEET,
BELLARY. % _
(BY SR1. S.P. SHANKAR-A;?')VE_FOVR-I/{AE,EE3 %
SHARIFFnAD\i»FOR R. 1)
(BY SR1. BASAVARAJ KARE_I_)VD¥-ADV. FOR R2)
THIS M.F.A. IS FILED U:]S_ 3:1: % 016 THE wgc. Aer,
AGAINST THE JUDGME;N'£--'_ 2AN1::>- ORDER DATED
30.4.1997 IN wcA:cR; 100/ _96{ --*PASSED BY THE
c0MMIss1oNEr{'i?oR Awompmxs I COMPENSATION,
DAVANAGERE;7.'A.§,I;QWI:N{':r_ THE CLAIM PETITION FOR
COMPENSATION. «
This V on for hearing this day,
R£uQVJ., delivered the following:
:JUDGMEN'l':
._ question of law that arise for
. consideratiozi in this appeal is:
»?:'W'2ir:fl1:c5i* the W.C. Commissioner was correct in
._ assessirmg the disability of the workman at 100% in
% of a no11-schedule injury?"
The respondent No.1(worl«man) was working as a
cleaner in the lorry of respondent No.2. He has Cg/..
sustained fiacture injuries, which are injuries in the course of and out of empioyefiieng 1' doctor who has examined the" §V0i*.k1aen.; evidence that the disability is dieebiiityi it is incurable. Further steteszrgat the get i aggravated in the cam, E;--- ,q_(fi,f is "eaiegoriml medical opinion expressed percentage of disability. .~C. face of such evidence tbteii less' of eam.1n' g capacity at 10{I%'. -the workman for medical examiriatienlf * certificate issued by the _ hospital and Research Institute siietire limb disability is at 36% and total peg-eeeeeeeeeeee is at 12%. Under the we Act the gioss capacity te be assessed on the basis of V' V' f'che of the sustained. The expression loss of Capacity is not synonymous with the expression V lees of permanent disabiiity. The doctor in the instant case has opined that the limb disability is at 36%. $/ Therefore the loss of earning should be assessed at and not 1/3 of the Iimb disability. In that assessment of disability at 100% itisze' > commissioner is bad in law. The';»same assesses} at 36%. The is compensation 120ox225.22x3s#"/190%125397295/~ as against RS217 H the WHO. Commissioner. to interest at the rate of the order of the W. C. Ceznn;1issisi':s11 ThResd.:_é'posit to be tran$"erred to the . flW.C_,»» '{:3o:fimjssiot1er.._fQrv payment. The excess amount in shall be rdunded to the Sd/....
Judge Sd/-.
Judge