Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri Saleem Shahid on 30 June, 2011
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
é_ (B\,{~Eiri !JV,P0en'ach_a_,ivAdv.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA'i\}_eAL§i€Ei
DATED THIS THE 30"" DAY OF-JUN--'_,E,
BEFORE 2 A
THE H{)N'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.i)ENU.éoPA'r_,:§ é3.0w'L§A--.
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAJT NO."1i_i§?67 OF"T.?.:O,Q_}7 (WC)
BETWEEN: V *
The Divisionai Manager, _
The Oriental Insurance Lt.d.,_ E
Divisional Office -- 10; - - '
"Dwaraka" 2"" floor,
No.79, uthamargjaadhi;SaIa'i;; _ _ V_ -
Chennai - 4'
Tamii Nadu, "
Represented__by?__f;he Asst,"M_ana'g'er,'g V
The Ori_e--r:ta.i_ Ii3.SUI'i3::DC€"«CO--._ Ltd
Regional Off'iiic'e7;..;T M _ -
Leo Shic-pping VC0r'nfp.|_ex_.V *
No.44/45,2 ReVSidenCg/f 'Rea-CL"
Bangalore "2560 02.5.} " T
~ ' ' ..APPELLANT
ri Sva'ieVern.i'V':3'?éahid
7 S/0. AmE":e.:"jan,
Ag ed; ' 2 65. yea rs,
R/at Huiiyar Mane,
.. ,Hosf3'itaI Road, Huiiyar,
_ Cfihikkanayakanahaili Taiuk;
"T-zimkur District.
Sri HS. Shivaraju,
{M3
S/0. Siddaraju Shetty
Major, Coconut Merchant,
Residing at Huliyar,
Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk;
Tumkur District.
(By Sri A.Sanath Kumar, Adv. for R1;
R2 is served but unrepresented)
.. -at *
This MFA is filed under sea-liol+§_Api3t)(ii)is
against the Judgment dated 1'?.,7';-2007;-3passed"; in ,
WCA.NF.SR.No.35/2006 on th.e'*f_lle of t_he.VVLabdur"'Gi"ficer '
and Commissioner for workrnen's_ compensation, D.K.,
Sub-Division--2, Mangalore, aw-ardi.ng~..t'a compensation of
21,20,996/~ with lnterest"'~@ 1.'_20/c;p".a_,_
This appeal comingV_dn._ferVVC:rders"this--V"day, the Court
delivered the fQliQw_i'ng::_' " A. . .. »
'V
With-the"Cd'ri2;$ent--.'.bf_V'le'a'rn.e.d'°counsel on both sides,
the appeal'- is hearing.
5-2,4 LA petitiihon filed by the 13' respondent
.it°'agValrnést?"'tAhe'l'fa respeéndent and the appellant to award I~r.:empVensat.ienV"r-an acceunt of the employment injuries sustained accident which occurred on 29.09.2006 '""'--__"*wnas aivltewed by the Commissioner for Worl<men's t.éCemp*ensatien, D.K SL:b--Divisian~2f Mangalore and an .,,;a_i;iIard for %'Ig.20,996/--~ with interest at 12% was passed. is §\ 11 is é"'Ar' Feeiing aggrieved, the 2" respondent in the ciai.rre":pet'ig:tis:en ie, the insurance company, has filed this appeaii'.
3. Sri M.U.Poonacha, Learned Advoc-ate:j~ap'i:tea.rii:g"
for the appellant contended that, the:i.nji;:ri4eS':Su':;tairie_d the accident being fracture,*of_ tendpin' of rg!»et*t;utfQot'i';and fracture of medial Ciuiniforni;'~~.:.'gif»Ihi_ch Va're:ri'on:':§;chVedu|e injuries and the qual:if';~3d .'_'n5H"e§j;*§a_i.'Vg"_i'pgactit"ioAnér having stated that an extent of 15%, the Lea:_rne'f:lr:r7rjorhrnissiiionetwhas.cornmitted an error in holding '---hias'i"euftered loss of earning capacity llll iiccituiisei submits that the Commiss.ion.er, circumstances of the case, is not _vjusti"fi»ed' in'V--.o\2--erl'o'oking the medical evidence on ""'«.,.prece__rd ;3.gd..i_coming"'*t*o"a entirely different conclusion while
7.ta:5<3e'esingi"the'toss of earning capacity and hence the corn'peneatioj_n..r:' assessed and the award passed being excessi\ée_, interference in the matter is called for. Srt A.Sanath Kumar; Learned Advocate ...a.ppearing fer the 1" respondent, on the other hand 'i QT;
/' '«i\ 2' submitted that, there is correct appreciation of evidvei'é,cee.t>y the Commissioner and there being no substant_ie'i'-o..oeeItilé;_n of law arising for determination, maintainable. Learned counsel however' «poiTjntedV._:oLt.__t'h'at§,ii' the Commissioner is not justified in'-not award;in'g' i'ntere"stV'p on the compensation amount""ir;iVr"t.the p'er_i_oi:*l:.t:onr";ndencing from 29.10.2006 till i§O.._'days'V'pe'rVivod after adjudication of the claim' and'l'vhi'encer:_th.e.Virnpugned award may be modified "_-and}: thie_:'c.cla.iVrna_ifl_tVbe held entitled to interest _ the rival contentions and the record, the "qiiiestiolne'-i«i_hic'h"arise for determination are:
_1, l/'vhetrzelr the Commissioner has committed ._a.n erroriri'overlooking the medicai evidence T 'record and in assessing the loss of future capacity at 25%?
v_.-2,_vl'izi/nether the ciaimant is entitled to interest on the compensation amount after expiry of 30 days period from the date of occurrence of the accident? %
6. The accident, employment, injuries during the course of emp=loyrn.enit permanent disability suffe're_d, 'jjthe Commissioner in the impugne'dvl.Tludgme'r;~tare under challenge.
7. Ex.P~«3 is wound' tee-rtil'Fl.c.ate which shows that the claimant had tendon of left foot and fractpdrfe of from other injuries in §RTAi.;nea':~']§;gln§%yat<rlcfrpsveglfifiost on 29.09.2006 while Jb_e_i_ng".0ernVe:l:o},le'dj" " of lorry bearing reglstrevtlonAllylo-';.l£A:#44%'2$8-.__which belonged to the 2""
respondentjplalndl the appellant. PW~2 has dep0;';e'dt0.redardl_Vng" the 'treatment and the permanent _ é"'d§sa'lbi'litE"\,'?; tlehas that there is disability to the limb 25% and to the whole body at 15%.
C.on"é'llderl«ndf'i__the evidence of PW.2~quallfied medical 'w0_'practitloh1erV, the Commissioner has recorded the finding V' 'V~?f»that"«--téhere is loss of earning capacity at 25%. Keeping in the nature of injuries sustained, the percentage of 6 disability found by PW~2 and the fact that the ciaimah-t.__can do other works and the disability has to be to ail work, the Commissioner has committed .esrVr'o:* it holding that there is loss of earnin'g'i"<:apaci,ty {tof extent.' of 25%, when the partial disability»'is__ view the evidence on record-,.4slL'\'more V"parti-ctuivarilyfy"that of '' PW.2 - qualified medicaid.~~'*p.rar:t'i'ti_oner,"~t.heV§ partial permanent disability loss of earning capacity can b.e4.t;o__an wages. There is excess the loss Of earning capacity.i.st§2;.4l'OCi;';;A_ x 2iuo1_;g66' x.:s1a5/5100 = Rs.72,598/--. V' amount ought to have been deposmlsd xAfi'thi'riw.3'O d"ay's'.Vfrom the date of occurrence of 'xi"=.the-':t._a'cc.i*dent. ihe"""C"ommissioner is not justified in not t__ata{atdt.ingiriterest on the compensation amount after 30 d.ay_s'iéof_'t'hseV_accident and in directing the payment of "._>lUt€I'€St,'Aj_lf the compensation amount assessed is not V' iffdieposited within 30 days period. The Commissioner has
- exercised the power under %.4--A(3) of the workmen is er 3/ Compensatien Act. In ORIENTALAINSURANCE Cg:'2.:~}ie%xe.¢x;Y LIMITED vs. MOHD./VASIR & ANOTHER -- 200'._<;f"'§!3§;ff{'~...S¢:;§r{t§*; 3717, the Apex Court has heid that, during"
of the claim, the claimant is entittedtite §ih!;erest_':
p.a. In the decision reportedptat ILR'2(:3'09 ALEEMUDIN & OTHERS DIX/'fSIVC}.'\//1L._V MA--A!AGER, 2 ' M/S./VEW INDIA ASSURANCE .GUl:.BAR_(;E7A, with reference to the date' whighth :in1:erest has to be paid on the As_compAen.s'atioh_ :»a:"fi~o'uh.t»v.. in workmen compensation%__'Cie§:rhs, jfxhais "bxeeih ,hex!'d -3-st: foilowsz "8. .fi1irttfi::.'th.e'ratidiof law laid down in the ease't'resfe:jred« ithihs ' just and necessary to state that the 1Vetrgef4VBef1eTh"' -decision in the case of PRATAP NARAIN appears to have not been _ brought to the tiotiee of the H0n'b1e Supreme Court, the" «d.eeisi0n in the case of NATIONAL A r _, INSIJPAJNZCE COMPANY LTD. vs MUBASIR AHMED AND V I£?{[vilg¥iZQ?A'g'-CHATURVEDFS CASE {SUPRA} were delivered.
'' Thve.s'et;:_dt::tw0 decisions are by Benches to two Horfble Jtidges of the Apex Ceurt, whereas, the ration of law laid.' down in the Case of Pratap Narain Singh Beds Tffease. which has been fefiowed in the subsequent cases, was rendered by a quot m of more than two 7 31 xi"?
9 Hence, the contenticvns of the Learned 1§::3u4;ige:j"1':;:;%'~. respondem: are unacceptable. SubstanU2§;1-._ques'£ien "efj law stands answered accordingly.'-'- & In the result, the appeat is af'»E:0W':'3d..i:h Ar5?.3_F€~=' 'A The compensation paxkahle s2ta.n"dsV d<ete..r;mVi_Vhec.? at. 7 ?72,598/--. The said amount earré/"'ir1utTet;esffgat 12% pa w.e.f 29.10.2006, V:.Of:..Vfc";Ci'E.'[;.a.I depeeft. Out of the-:;amou§;jfV'Vi'h'_t}::ep:eAsV§,i_;.._th'e1c;§mpensation and the interestéis to the Office of the Comniwis.<i.oVnéz<.'vériiithe-._b'al:éhk:e.::aVmE>unt be refunded to the appelant -__; :.-- --,-
Parfiestehbeafthehgfespecfive costs.
Draw 4_m"oVdifV'ie_da Aawafié.
".H-' ..... ggge mm eefigg