Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Manager vs Sri. Ramesh S/O. Marilingappa on 25 June, 2021
Author: P.Krishna Bhat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
MFA NO 23582 OF 2013 C/W.
MFA.NOS.23581/2013 (WC)
IN MFA NO 23582 OF 2013
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
BELLARY, REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
OPPOSITE RADHIKA TALKIES,
RAGHAVACHARI ROAD, BELLARY
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADV.)
AND
1 . SRI. OBAIAH S/O. LATE BUGGAIYYA
,AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: EX-LOADER,
R/O. HOSAHATTI VILLAGE,
KUDALGI TQ,DIST: BELLARY.
2 . SRI.SHARANAGOUDA S/O RUDRAGOUDA,
AGE: MAJOR,R/O.HOSALINGAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ: KOPPAL (OWNER OF THE TRACTOR TRAILOR
NO.KA-37 A 6499-6500)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A PUROHIT, ADV. FOR
SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WC ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER
DTD:29.06.2012 PASSED IN WCA:CR. NO.138/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB-
2
DIVISION-2, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,27,853/- P.A.
IN TIME. CF SUFFICIENT. IA 3/2013 FOR STAY:- IA IS FILED UNDER XLI RULE 5
OF CPC., PRAYING TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER DTD:29.06.2013
MADE IN CASE NO.WCA.CR. NO.138/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR
OFFICER AND WORKMENS COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER SUB-DIVISION-II,
BELLARY PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE ABOVE APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
IN MFA NO 23581 OF 2013 :
BETWEEN
THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY
REPRESENTED THROUGH ITS
DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
OPPOSITE RADHIKA TALKIES,
RAGHAVACHARI ROAD, BELLARY,
REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.NAGANGOUDA R KUPPELUR, ADV.)
AND
1 . SRI. RAMESH S/O. MARILINGAPPA,
AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: EX-DRIVER,
R/O NEAR COURT, KUDALGI TQ.
DIST: BELLARY,
2 . SRI. SHARANAGOUDA S/O. RUDRAGOUDA,
AGE:MAJOR,R/O. HOSALINGAPUR VILLAGE,
TQ:KOPPAL(OWNER OF THE TRACTOR
TRAILER NO.KA 37/A-
6499-6500).
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A PUROHIT, ADV. FOR
SRI. DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2;
R1 SERVED)
THIS MFA FILED U/SEC.30(1) OF WC ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER
DTD:29.06.2012 PASSED IN WCA:CR. NO.135/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE
LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMENS COMPENSATION, SUB-
DIVISION-2, BELLARY, AWARDING THE COMPENSATION OF RS.1,55,985/- WITH
INTEREST AT 12 P.A.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
3
JUDGMENT
These appeals are at the instance of the insured filed
under Section 30(1) of the Employees' Compensation Act,
1923 (for short, 'Act') calling in question the award date d
29.06.2012 passed in WCA:CR.Nos.138/2012 and
135/2012 by the learned Labour Officer and Commissioner
for Workmen's Compensation, Sub-division-II, Ballary (for
short, the 'Commissioner').
2. Brief facts are that claimant Ramesh was working
as drive and claimant Obaiah was working as loader in a
tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KA-37/A-6499-
6500 owned by respondent No.1/Sharnagouda S/o.
Rudragouda and insured with appellant-insurance
company. It is stated that on 27.03.2011 at about 4.00
p.m. while claimants were transporting KEB wire to
Hoshatti village on account of rash and negligent driving
of the tractor and trailer by its driver, it capsized
resulting in injuries to the claimants.
3. In the proceedings before the learned
Commissioner, respondent No.1/Insured filed written
statement admitting the employer and employee
relationship between himself and the claimants and he
also admitted the accident. The appellant-insurance
company also filed separate written statement denying
averments made in the claim petitions.
4. During the enquiry, claimants examined
themselves as witnesses and examined a qualified medical
practitioner by name Dr.Laxmi Narayana and Exs.P1 to
P11 were marked. Respondent No.2 did not examine any
witness and policy of insurance was marked as Ex.R2(1).
5. Upon consideration of the entire materials placed
before him, the learned Commissioner awarded
compensation of Rs.1,55,985/- to the claimant Ramesh
and Rs.1,27,853/- to the claimant Obaiah with interest
thereon at 12% per annum.
6. Sri. Naganagouda Kuppellur, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant/insurance company submitted
that the claimants had not at all suffered any injuries and
the claimants had played fraud on the learned
Commissioner by producing false documents and he
further contended that qualified medical
examiner/Dr.Laxmi Narayana who was witness before the
learned Commissioner has been suspended from medical
practice for malpractice and his assessment of loss in the
earning capacity does not merit for consideration. He
further submitted that wound certificate of the claimants
do not disclose any fracture and injuries on them were all
non-grievous in nature and therefore, there is no loss in
the earning capacity. He therefore submits that
substantial question of law arises for consideration and
the appeal deserves to be allowed.
7. The claimants were served with Court notices and
they have remained unrepresented.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the insured.
9. The learned Commissioner has awarded
compensation of Rs.1,55,985/- to the claimant Ramesh
and Rs.1,27,853/- to the claimant Obaiah on the basis
that they had suffered loss in the earning capacity to the
extent of 25% each. For the said purpose, the learned
Commissioner has placed reliance on the common
evidence given by Dr.Laxmi Narayana. It is required to be
noticed that Dr.Laxmi Narayana is not a qualified
orthopedic surgeon. It is being repeatedly submitted
before this Court that Dr.Laxmi Narayana has earned
considerable notoriety on account of his habit of giving
opinions with excessive loss of earning capacity and his
license to practice has also been suspended.
10. Insofar as the present case is concerned, Ex.P.5
is the wound certificate issued by the Medical Officer of
community health centre, Kottur. The said certificate
reads as under:
WOUND CERTIFICATE
1. Name of the patient : Ramesh, driver
2. Father/husband name: Maralingappa. Walekar
3. Age and caste : 30 years, kurubaru.
4. Address : Kesarubhavi
5. Identification marks: A wound scar over the left
Knee
6. Brought with: Self
7. Cause of incident: RTA
8. Time date of incident: 23.07.2011 at 4 pm.
9. Time and date of examination: 23.7.2011 at 7 p.m.
10. Injuries: 1. Abrated wound over the left ear.
2. Pain, swelling and tenderness over the
left shoulder
3. Pain, swelling and Tenderness over the
left knee
11. Opinion: The No.1 injury is simple in nature.
The No.2 and 3 injuries are grievous in
nature.
date:27.6.12
Place: Kottur Sd/-
Medical Officer,
Community Health Centre,
Kotturu.
11. Wound certificate does not show that the
Medical Officer of Community Health Centre, Kotturu had
found suspected fracture of any of the limbs of driver
Ramesh. Community Health Centres are usually equipped
with x-ray machines and there is no indication that x-ray
was taken on said Ramesh and the Medical Officer had not
referred him for x-ray.
12. Similarly, wound certificate issued at Ex.P.10
reads as follows:
WOUND CERTIFICATE
1. Name of the patient : Obaiah
2. Father/husband name: Baggaiah
3. Age and caste : 38 years,vaalmiki.
4. Address : Hosahatti
5. Identification marks: A black mole on back
6. Brought with: Self
7. Cause of incident: RTA
8. Time date of incident: 23/7/11 around 4 pm.
9. Time and date of examination: 23/7/2011 4-30 p.m.
10. Injuries:
( A s p e r d i s ch a rg e
S u m m a ry of
Bap u j i h o sp it al ) 1. Abrasions seen on left suprascapular
region.
2. Contusion over Rt frontal lobe. Rt
frontal intra primal hemorrhage.
11. Opinion: In my opinion injury no.(1) is simple in
Nature and injury no.(2) is grievous in
nature.
date:24.9.11
Place: Kottur Sd/-
Medical Officer,
Community Health Centre,
Kotturu.
13. As could be seen from Ex.P.10, there was
abrasion on suprascapular region and contusion over right
frontal lobe and also hemorrhage noticed.
14. Ex.P.11 shows that Obaiah was admitted to
Bapuji hospital, Davanagere wherein he was inpatient for
5 days. The treatment details shown in Ex.P.11 disclose
that Obaiah was managed conservatively with antibiotics
and pain killers. There is nothing to indicate from the
wound certificate that these two claimants had suffered
any post treatment disabilities. The portion of the
evidence of Dr.Laxmi Narayana extracted in the award of
the learned Commissioner shows that the said Dr.Laxmi
Narayana has grossly exaggerated post treatment impact
of the injuries on the capacity to earn the livelihood by
the claimants for reasons best known to him.
15. Under such circumstances, the conclusion
arrived at by the learned Commissioner is based on no
evidence and it is obviously perverse. Accordingly, award
passed by the learned Commissioner is liable to be set
aside. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) The above appeal is allowed.
ii) The award dated 29.06.2012 passed in
WCA:CR.Nos.138/2012 and 135/2012 by the learned
Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Sub-division-II, Ballary is set aside.
iii) The amount in deposit, if any, shall be refunded
to the appellant-insurance company forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
VB/-
