Karnataka High Court
Maruthi S/O Laxman Gadiyalkar vs Tanaji S/O Ramachandra Nakadi on 30 June, 2022
Bench: Krishna S.Dixitpresided Byksdj
-1-
MFA No. 22466 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 22466
OF 2010 (WC)
BETWEEN:
MARUTHI S/O LAXMAN GADIYALKAR,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BASAVANAGAR, DHARWAD.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LOKESH MALAVALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. TANAJI S/O RAMACHANDRA NAKADI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O KASABA GALLI, HALLIYAL ROAD,
HALLIYAL, DIST: NORTH CANARA.
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
CHURCH ROAD, DHARWAD,
Digitally
REPRESENTED BY
signed by
ROHAN
HADIMANI T
SRINATH COMPLEXN.C.M.,
ROHAN
HADIMANI Location:
DHARWAD
HUBBALLI.
T Date:
2022.07.11
10:27:22
+0530
...RESPONDENTS
(BY NOTICE TO R1 DISPENSED WITH;
SRI. RAVINDRA R. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
MFA No. 22466 of 2010
THIS MFA FILED U/S. 30(1) OF WORKMEN'S
COMPENSATION ACT, 1923, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
AWARD DATED 03.05.2010 PASSED IN KA.A.HU/WCA/NF
NO.86/2006, ON THE FILE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER &
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SUB-
DIVISION - I, HUBLI, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM
PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING
ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY. THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal by the claimant seeks to lay a
challenge to the Judgment & Order dated 03.05.2010
made by the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Hubballi Division, Hubballi, whereby
appellant's claim petition in W.C.A.No.86/2006 has
been negatived on the sole ground that he had failed
to examine the doctor who had treated the injuries.
2. Notice to respondent No.1 has been
dispensed with. After service of notice, the 2nd
respondent-insurer has entered appearance through
its learned Senior Panel Counsel who opposes the
appeal making submission in justification of the
MFA No. 22466 of 2010
impugned order and the reasons which it has been
constructed.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and having perused the appeal papers along
with the original TCR, the following substantial
question of law is framed with assistance of the Bar:
When the vehicular accident that
happened in the course of employment and
the consequent suffering of injuries are held
to have been proved on the basis of the
evidentiary material on record in respect of
other claimants, whether compensation
could have been denied to the appellant
despite he producing the Wound
Certificates at Ex.P10 and Hospital Scan
Centre Report at Ex.P18?
4. The above question has to be answered in
the negative inasmuch as already a finding been
recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation as to the happening of the accident, in
MFA No. 22466 of 2010
the course of employment; the claimant being the
employee of the 1st respondent herein. There is
sufficient evidentiary material coupled with drawing of
inference from the proved facts that appellant had
suffered injuries on account of this accident. If that be
so, compensation ought to been awarded to him under
the provisions of Employees' Compensation Act, 1923
as rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
claimant.
5. In matters relating of adjudging of injuries,
pains, etc., guess work has a big role to play,
arithmetical precision not being reasonably possible.
Going by the evidentiary material on record this Court
is of a considered opinion that a global compensation
of Rs.50,000/- would do justice to both the sides.
In the above circumstances, this appeal
succeeds; impugned Judgment & Order having been
reversed a global compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty
MFA No. 22466 of 2010
thousand only) sans interest is awarded to the
claimant.
The 2nd respondent-insurer shall make good the
sum within a period of four weeks, failing which award
amount would carry an interest at the rate of 18%
p.a. from the date of accident.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RH,KMS
