Allowed

The United India Insurance Ltd. v. Veeresh S/O Rudrappa Anr.

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2014MFA/30605/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court Bench, reviewing a compensation award for a driver injured in an accident, reduced the disability percentage from 35% to 25% and adjusted the compensation quantum. The court also fixed the interest period from the date of the accident.

What did the court decide?

The award is modified to pay Rs. 1,30,146/- at 12% interest from the date of accident; respondent allowed to withdraw from deposit.

The United India Insurance Ltd. Vs Veeresh S/O… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶3

GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. PACHHAPURE

¶7

MFA NO. 30605 OF 2011 (WC)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

The United India Insurance Ltd Raichur through its Divisional Manager

¶10

… Appellant

¶11

[By Sri J.Augustin, Advocate)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Veeresh S/o Rudrappa Kanasavi Ex Driver, Age: 27 years, R/o Pikalihal Tq Lingsgur. Dist. Raichur 584122.

¶14

Rudrappa S/o Mahanthappa, Owner of Tractor and Trailer KA-36:TA-8381 and TA 8382 R/o Pikalihal Tq Lingsgur. Dist Raichur.

¶15

… Respondents

¶16

(By Sri Basavaraj R Math, Advocate for R-1)

¶17

¶18

This appeal is filed U/S 30(1) of W.C.Act against the judgment and award dated 07.01.2011 passed in WCA No.18/2010 on the file of the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workman Compensation at Raichur, partly allowing the claim petition, challenging the quantum of compensation.

¶19

This appeal coming for Orders this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶20

JUDGEMENT

¶21

The insurer has challenged the award of the Commissioner and also quantum of compensation for the injuries sustained by the 1^st respondent in the course of employment.

¶22

The facts reveal that the 1^st respondent

¶23

was employed as a driver on the tractor and trailer bearing No. KA-36/TA-8381 and TA-8382 and on 08.08.2009 while driving the tractor the jeep hit the tractor and thereby he sustained grievous injuries. He suffered disability and therefore, made a claim for compensation under the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act.

¶24

¶25

He was examined and in his evidence the

¶26

documents Ex.P-1 to P-9 were marked. The insurance policy was admitted in evidence with consent as Ex.R.1. The Commissioner has assessed the disability at 35% and income at Rs.4,000/- and adopting relevant factor 216.19, granted compensation of Rs.1,82,204/-

¶27

with interest at 12%. Aggrieved by the amount of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed.

¶28

With the consent of both the counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for both

¶30

parties. The substantial question of law arises for my consideration is:

¶31

Whether the Commissioner was justified in

¶32

assessing the disability suffered by 1^st respondent at 35%?

¶33

The 1^st respondent examined one Dr.

¶34

Mallikarjun to prove the disability suffered. The injury certificate and disability certificate has

¶35

¶36

been produced at Ex.P-4 and P-5. The 1^st respondent has suffered fracture of distal end of radius and other three injuries. PW 2 the doctor has opined that there is a mal-union and opined the disability at 44%. The Commissioner has taken up it at 35%. Taking into consideration the nature of the fracture, the pain that the 1^st respondent suffers in addition to mal-union, it would be just and proper to accept the disability in the 1^st respondent at 25%.

¶37

Though the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent contends that the income of the 1^st respondent is more than Rs.4,000/-per month as the accident was in the year 2009 before the amendment to

¶38

the provisions of Workmen’s Compensation Act, the wages were in between Rs.3,000/- to Rs.4,000/- per month. The Commissioner has taken the maximum wages, I do not think that the income could be taken more than that. Looking to the nature of injury and the evidence in this regard, it is just and proper to assess the permanent disability at 25%. If the

¶39

¶40

relevant factor adopted is taken into consideration with the wages at Rs.4,000/-per month and disability at 25%, the net compensation payable would be Rs. 1,30,146/-. Therefore, the Commissioner has awarded excess compensation and that has to be reduced.

¶41

So far as the interest is concerned, the

¶42

Commissioner has awarded interest from the date of expiry of one month of the accident. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on a decision reported in 2014(3) SCJ 274 (Saberabibi Yakubhai Shaikh and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and others), wherein following the judgment of four Judges reported in (1976) 1 SCC 289, it has been held that the compensation payable would be from the date of the accident. To that extent, the judgment and award of the Commissioner would be modified. Hence I answer the substantial question of law in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

¶45

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and award are modified. The 1^st respondent is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,30,146/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till its realisation.

¶46

1^st respondent is permitted to withdraw the amount, in deposit. Excess if any shall be paid to insurer.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

*MK

The United India Insurance Ltd. v. Veeresh S/O Rudrappa Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The United India Insurance Ltd. v. Veeresh S/O Rudrappa Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baba S/O Saheb Lal Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

Rizwan Begum D/O Rasool Sab Shahapur Vs Nirmala W/O Manohar Mani

Bharathbai W/O Late Babu Udgere Vs Maruthi S/O Bandappa Pujari Ors.

Sri. Vishnu S/O Shivaji Rathod Vs Sri. Mahadev S/O Bhimanna Hadimani Anr.

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co., Ltd. Vs Somashekhar S/O Rudrappa

The Branch Manager National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Mailarappa S/O Parameshwarappa