Balappa S/O Mallappa Sunkad vs The Divisional Manager
2021 Latest Caselaw 2310 Kant

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

             DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

                            BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT


                  MFA NO.22680 OF 2013 (WC)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. BALAPPA S/O MALLAPPA SUNKAD
AGE:25 YEARS, OCC:NOW NIL,
R/O GOKAK, TQ:GOKAK,
DIST:BELGAUM.
                                                    ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI.HANAMANT R LATUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
CLUB ROAD, BELGAUM.
                                                    ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.K. SOUDAGAR, ADVOCATE)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 30(1) OF THE WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, PRAYING TO ENHANCE THE COMPENSATION BY
MODIFYING THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD PASSED BY THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-
DIV-1, BELGAUM, KA.PA.KA/SR NO.108/2008, DATED 2.3.2012 IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                       2


                               JUDGMENT

This appeal filed under Section 30(1) of the

Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 is at the instance of

the claimant calling in question the legality of the award

dated 2.3.2012 passed in WCA/SR-108/2008 by the

learned Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's

Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Belgaum (for short,

'Commissioner').

2. Brief facts are that the claimant was working as a

Cleaner in Truck (VRL) bearing registration No.KA-25/B-42

owned by respondent No.1 before the learned

Commissioner and insured with sole respondent herein. It

is stated that on 11.3.2005, while the claimant who is the

appellant herein was boarding the said Truck after taking

gate pass from the factory, the driver suddenly moved the

same, resulting in the claimant falling off from the lorry

and in the said process, wheel of the truck ran over his

leg, resulting in serious fracture injuries to him.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 before the learned

Commissioner have contested the proceedings denying the

averments made in the claim petition by filing their

separate written statements.

4. During the enquiry, the claimant examined himself

and also a qualified medical practitioner and got marked

Exs.P1 to P5. Respondents 1 and 2 did not examine any

witness and policy of insurance was marked as Ex.R2(1).

5. Upon consideration of the materials produced

before him, the learned Commissioner recorded a finding

that the employee and employer relationship between the

claimant and insured was established and similarly, fact

that the accident resulting in injuries took place in the

course of and arising out of the employment. The learned

Commissioner further recorded a finding that the claimant

was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident and

he was getting monthly wages of Rs.3,000/-. Based on

the medical evidence produced before him, he recorded a

further finding that the claimant had suffered loss in the

earning capacity to the extent of 45%. By applying

appropriate relevant factor, the learned Commissioner

awarded a compensation of Rs.1,79,309/- with interest

thereon at 12% per annum from thirty days of the

adjudication till date of deposit.

6. It is urged in support of the appeal that the

learned Commissioner has committed an error of law in

fixing monthly wages of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- and

also fixing loss of earning capacity to the extent of 45%.

7. On consideration of the materials, I am satisfied

that the learned Commissioner has recorded a finding that

the claimant was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as on the

date of the accident namely 11.3.2005. Similarly, he has

fixed loss of earning capacity by placing reliance on the

opinion placed before him by the qualified medical

practitioner. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to

interfere with the same. However, legal position is well

settled that insofar as award of interest on the

compensation amount is concerned, same is liable to be

computed w.e.f. thirty days from the date of the accident

till the date of realization. Accordingly, in this case, the

respondent/insurance company is liable to pay interest

w.e.f. thirty days from the date of the accident till date of

realization. Hence, the following:

ORDER

a) The above appeal is allowed in part.

          b) While    maintaining    the     quantum    of

             compensation    awarded    by   the   learned

Commissioner, the claimant is entitled to

receive interest at 12% per annum w.e.f.

thirty days from the date of accident till

the date of realization.

Sd/-

JUDGE

JTR