Dismissed
The National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Kotresh S/O Malkappa Horiholi
Karnataka HCMFA/20667/2013
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
2024:KHC-D:11382 MFA No. 20667 of 2013 IN…
What the court decided
AI extract
2024:KHC-D:11382 MFA No. 20667 of 2013 IN…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:11382 MFA No. 20667 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 20667 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD., INDIRA GLASS HOUSE, SUJATHA COMPLEX, HUBLI
…APPELLANT
(BY SMT. ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(R1 & R2 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
Location: BHARATHI HIGH H M COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC. 30(1) OF WC ACT 1923, PRAYS THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2012 PASSED IN W.C. (NF) 74/2011 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, HAVERI BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by insurance company challenging the order dated 15.11.2012 passed in W.C.(NF) 74/2011 by Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri.
question of law stated in the appeal memo is purely a question of fact. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Golla Rajanna V/s Divisional Manager and another1
has considered similar matter and observed thus:
“10. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, having regard to the evidence, had returned a finding on the nature of injury and the percentage of disability. It is purely a question of fact. There is no case for the insurance company that the finding is based on no evidence at all or that it is perverse. Under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage of permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioner. There is no case for the respondents that the doctor who issued the disability certificate is not a qualified medical practitioner, as defined under the Act. Thus, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner has passed the order based on the certificate of disability issued by the doctor and which has been duly proved before the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner.
1 AIR 2016 SC 5382
jurisdiction and has ventured to re-appreciate the evidence and recorded its own findings on percentage of disability for which also there is no basis. The whole exercise made by the High Court is not within the competence of the High Court under Section 30 of the Act.”
question of fact. Considering the said aspects, no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
Sd/(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE
RKM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0
1 issue framed by the court
Does the challenge to the Commissioner's 35% disability assessment raise a substantial question of law under Section 30(1)?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Golla Rajanna V/s Divisional Manager and anotherRelied on
AIR 2016 SC 5382 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The National Insurance Co., Ltd., Hubli
Shri. Kotresh S/o. Malkappa Horiholi
Kotresh Gudleppa Kuravatti
Shivashankar Amaranannavar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court