Dismissed

Sri Venkatesh Sheshappa Shetty v. Smt Jayanthi Subhash Mahale

Karnataka HC25 Jul 2022MFA/8310/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

II Appeal filed under Section 30(1) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, challenging compensation award for clavicle fracture. Challenge based on disagreement with assessment of loss of earning capacity (15% vs 20%). Court held fact finding was based on evidence regarding simple fracture not requiring intervention. Appeal dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as it was devoid of merits; the compensating order remains valid.

Sri Venkatesh Sheshappa Shetty Vs Smt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT

¶6

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.8310/2016 (WC)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SRI.VENKATESH SHESHAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS S/O SHESHAPPA SHETTY R/AT BASRURU POST AND VILLAGEKUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 211

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY MR.NAGARAJA HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

SMT.JAYANTHI SUBHASH MAHALE MAJOR

¶13

D/O SUBHASH MAHALE R/AT KARGAL, SAGAR SHIVAMOGGA - 577 421

¶14

THE UNITED INSURANCE CO. LTD., SAGAR BRANCH REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL OFFICE MARUTHI VITHIKA

¶15

UDUPI - 576 101 REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY MR.P.B.RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 R1 SERVED)

¶18

¶19

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 16.08.2016 PASSED IN ECA.NO.12/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KUNDAPURA, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION.

¶20

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

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

This appeal is at the instance of the claimant calling in question the correctness and validity of the judgment and the award dated 16.08.2016 in ECA No.12/2014, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura.

¶23

The claim petition proceeded on the allegation that the claimant was working as a driver in the goods truck bearing Registration No.KA-15-A-8777, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. On 04.04.2010 at about 9:30 p.m., while the appellant/claimant was driving the said truck as an employee under respondent No.1, met with an accident

¶24

¶25

near Sarpanakatte of Bhatkal Taluk, resulting in fracture of his right clavicle.

¶26

The claim petition was resisted by the

¶27

Insurance Company which filed a detailed statement of objections. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte .

¶28

During the trial, claimant examined himself as

¶29

P.W.1 and examined a qualified Medical Practitioner as P.W.2. Exhibits P1 to P9 were marked.

¶30

Respondents did not examine any witness. Exhibit R1 was marked for respondents.

¶31

After hearing both sides and perusing the records, learned Court below has awarded a sum of `48,800/- (Rupees Forty eight thousand eight hundred only) with interest thereon at 12% per annum, after 30 days from the said order and respondents are liable to pay compensation within a period of 30 days from the date of the said order.

¶32

¶33

6. The only contention put-forth before me by

¶34

the learned counsel for appellant is that even though P.W.2- qualified Medical Practitioner had assessed the loss in the earning capacity at 20% which according to him is binding on the learned Court below, learned Court below has committed an error of law in assessing the loss in the earning capacity at only 15% and therefore award is illegal and appeal needs to be allowed.

¶35

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company, submits that the learned Court below after elaborate consideration of the evidence placed before it has rightly come to the conclusion that the loss in the earning capacity of the claimant is only to the extent of 15% and accordingly passed an award and this Court is not entitled to interfere with the same and therefore appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

¶37

I have given anxious consideration to the

¶38

submission made on both sides. I have perused the records.

¶39

The wound certificate evidencing the nature of the fracture suffered by the claimant/appellant is at Exhibit P3. Learned Court below after perusing the same, has noted the following:

¶40

(1) 3x3 c.m. lacerated wound over right elbow bleeding

¶41

(2) Pain and palpable fracture of right clavicle, X-rays shows fracture of right clavicle.

¶42

From the wound certificate issued by the Taluk

¶43

Hospital, Bhatkal, it is evident that the claimant had suffered a simple fracture of the clavicle which did not

¶44

require any interventional treatment. It is therefore evident that the qualified Medical Practitioner-P.W.2 has exaggerated the effect of such fracture and such evidence

¶45

is not liable to be accepted. The Court below having

¶46

¶47

appreciated the evidence placed before it has assessed the loss of earning capacity at 15% which being a finding of Act based on evidence is not required to be interfered with in exercise of power under Section 30 of the Employee Compensation Act.

¶48

Accordingly, this Miscellaneous First Appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed .

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

GVP

Sri Venkatesh Sheshappa Shetty v. Smt Jayanthi Subhash Mahale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkatesh Sheshappa Shetty v. Smt Jayanthi Subhash Mahale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Bhagirathi W/O Sonu Joshi Vs General Manager

New India Assurance Co., Ltd., Vs Sri. Ravindra S/O Panduranga Ankolekar

Bapuji Vidya Samsthe (Regd) Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences

Sri Chandrappa Vs Mohamad Ismail

Sri. B. Annu Vs the Manager

The Branch Manager Vs Smt Nanjamma