Dismissed

Dastagirsab S/O Ameensab Alamela v. Shabbir Ahmed S/O Dastgirsab Doddamani

Karnataka HC16 Oct 2014MFA/31078/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Miscellaneous First Appeal challenged the compensation quantum awarded for workmen's compensation. The appellant sought enhancement alleging under-assessment of disability. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the Commissioner's finding on disability was based on evidence and could not be disturbed. The appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The Miscellaneous First Appeal for enhancement of compensation is dismissed.

Dastagirsab S/O Ameensab Alamela Vs Shabbir… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

MFA NO.31078.2010

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA GULBARGA BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2014

¶5

BEFORE:

¶6

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

¶7

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.31078 OF 2010 (WC)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI. DASTAGIRSAB S/O. AMEENSAB ALAMELA AGE :38 YEARS, OCC :DRIVER R/O. DEVANAGAON, TQ:SINDHAGI DIST:BIJAPUR

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SMT. SHAILAJA C.D.ADV. FOR SMT. RATNA SHIVAYOGIMATH ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

SRI. SHABBIR AHMED S/O. DASTGIRSAB DODDAMANI OWNER OF TEMPO TRUCK R/O. AFZALPUR, DIST:GULBARGA

¶14

THE BRANCH MANAGER THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BIJAPUR

¶15

... RESPONDENTS

¶16

(SRI.R.V. NADAGOUDA ADV.FOR R2, NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH V/O.DTD:09.09.2014)

¶17

MFA NO.31078.2010

¶18

¶19

THIS MFA FILED UNDER SECTION 30 (1) OF WC ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 20.11.2009 PASSED IN WCA SR. NO.153/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION SUB-DIVISION-2 AT BIAJPUR ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION AND SEEKING FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶20

THIS MFA COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The appellant dissatisfied with the

¶23

compensation granted by the Commissioner for the disability suffered in the course of his employment has filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

¶24

The facts reveal that the appellant was

¶25

the driver of the tempo truck bearing registration No.KA-32/M-5074 and on 10.07.2007, he met win an accident, in the course of his employment, as a driver. He said to have been suffered grievous injuries, claiming his income at Rs.4,000/- he requested for compensation before the Commissioner

¶26

MFA NO.31078.2010

¶27

¶28

for the disability suffered. The Commissioner has

¶29

granted a sum of Rs.46,714/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum. Dissatisfied with quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

The learned counsel for the appellant

¶32

would submit that the assessment of disability is on the lower side and as the appellant has difficulty in hearing and the doctor has certified his permanent disability at 20% to 25% to the whole body. Therefore, he submits that the compensation be enhanced.

¶33

Perusal of the records, Ex.A4 reveals that

¶34

the appellant was treated in the Government hospital on 10.07.2008 and he has suffered the injury over the left cheek, measuring 3x1cm. The doctor has certified that the injury suffered is simple in nature. Subsequently, it appears that the appellant

¶35

has approached the other doctors and x-ray was

¶36

MFA NO.31078.2010

¶37

¶38

taken. He was found to have suffered the fracture of nasal bone and on the basis of his examination, Dr.Satish Rashinakar has issued the certificate, stating that the appellant has suffered the permanent disability to the extent of 20% to 25% to the whole body.

¶39

The Commissioner having looked into the injury certificate and after weighing the evidence of the doctor, has come to the conclusion that the permanent disability is only 10%. When the Commissioner has appreciated the evidence on record, come to the conclusion and finding arrived cannot be disturbed in the appeal, as there is no substantial question of law. So far as the salary is concerned,

¶40

the Commissioner has taken the maximum income at Rs.4,500/- per month and interest at 12% has been awarded from the proper date.

¶41

In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not find anything in the submission of the learned

¶42

MFA NO.31078.2010

¶43

¶44

counsel for the appellant about any substantial question of law.

¶45

Consequently, the appeal fails and accordingly

¶46

dismissed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Srt

Dastagirsab S/O Ameensab Alamela v. Shabbir Ahmed S/O Dastgirsab Doddamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dastagirsab S/O Ameensab Alamela v. Shabbir Ahmed S/O Dastgirsab Doddamani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Vs Smt.Laxmi @ Anjana Devi

Icici Lombard Gen. Ins, Co.,Ltd, Vs Peerappa S/O Dhulappa Dharigond and Otrs

Manjunath @ Manjugouda S/O Yamunappa Gouda Vs B.S. Biradar S/O Shanta Gouda Biradar and Anr.

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.