Karnataka High Court
Ashok Bhimashappa Jadali, Age: 33 ... vs Sanganagouda S/O.Dhavannavar, ... on 27 June, 2022
Bench: P.Krishna Bhat
-1-
MFA No. 23609 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.KRISHNA BHAT
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 23609 OF 2010 (WC-)
BETWEEN:
ASHOK BHIMASHAPPA JADALI,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC:COOLIE (NOW NIL)
R/O.SATTIGERI, TQ SAUNDATTI,
DIST:BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LINGRAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SANGANAGOUDA S/O.DHAVANNAVAR,
AGE MAJOR, PRESIDENT,
SIDDESHWAR RURAL DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY,
SIDDNAL,
R/O.YARAGATTI, TQ:SAUNDATTI,
NOW AT SATTIGERI VILLAGE,
SAUNDATTI, DIST : BELGAUM
2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
Digitally signed NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
by SUJATA
SUBHASH RAMDEVGALLI, BELGAUM
PAMMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
...RESPONDENTS
KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD
Date:
(BY SRI. BHARATESH B ALASANDI ADV., FOR R1;
2022.06.28
09:50:28 +0530
SRI. A. G. JADHAV, ADV., FOR R2)
THIS MFA IS FILED U/SEC.30(1)(aa) OF WC ACT, AGAINST
THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD:25-08-2009 PASSED IN WC/NF-
60/2008, ON THE FILE ON THE LABOUR OFFICER AND
COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, BAGALKOT
-2-
MFA No. 23609 of 2010
DISTRICT, BAGALKOT, 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 is at the instance of the claimant calling
question the legality and validity of the judgment and award
dated 25.08.2009 in WC/NF No.60/2008 passed by the
Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's
Compensation, Bagalkot District, Bagalkot (for short "the
Commissioner").
2. The brief facts are that the claimant-appellant
was working as a coolie in stone quarrying unit owned by
respondent No.1 herein and insured with respondent No.2.
The case of the claimant was that on 24.11.2007, while the
appellant was working as a coolie in the stone quarrying unit,
a big boulder fell on his right leg and thumb of his right
hand, resulting in grievous injuries.
MFA No. 23609 of 2010
3. On claim petition being filed, both the
respondents resisted the claim petition by filing their
separate written statement. Respondent No.1 admitted in
the written statement that the appellant was working as a
coolie in his unit and the accident resulting in injury taking
place in the course and arising out of the employment.
4. During trial, the claimant examined himself as
PW1 and he examined a qualified medical practitioner as
PW2. Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. The Insurance Company
examined one of its officials as RW1 and Exs.R1 to R3 were
marked.
5. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides
and perusing the records, the learned Commissioner
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,87,192/- with interest
thereon at 12% per annum.
6. It is urged in support of the appeal that the award
is illegal and arbitrary and the assessment of the learned
Commissioner in regard to the monthly income of the
appellant-claimant at Rs.2,500/- is on the lower side. It is
MFA No. 23609 of 2010
also urged therein that even though a qualified medical
practitioner had assessed permanent disability at 65%, the
learned Commissioner has taken the same only by 60%
which is also erroneous.
7. Learned counsel for the insurance company, per
contra, contended that the learned Commissioner after
appreciating the entire facts and the relevant legal principles
has assessed the loss in the earning capacity at 60% and
awarded Rs.1,81,192/- as compensation and the same does
not warrant any interference and the appeal is liable to be
dismissed.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
contentions taken on both sides and I have carefully perused
the records.
9. The employer-employee relationship and the
injury resulting in loss in the earning capacity taking place in
the course and arising out of the employment related injury
is not in dispute.
MFA No. 23609 of 2010
10. It is the contention of the appellant that the
compensation awarded is on the lower side and this
occasioned on account of the learned Commissioner
assessing the loss in the earning capacity at 60%, which
according to him is on the lower side. The learned
Commissioner has assessed the monthly income of the
claimant at Rs.2,500/-.
11. Careful perusal of the award of the learned
Commissioner shows that he has applied his mind to the
relevant aspects of the matter and thereafter assessed the
monthly income at Rs.2,500/- and therefore, I do not find
any good ground to interfere with the same. Similarly, with
regard to the loss of earning capacity due to the injuries
suffered by the claimant, the learned Commissioner has
applied his mind to the information given by the qualified
medical practitioner as well as the evidence placed on record
and thereafter has come to the conclusion that the disability
should be fixed at 60%. I do not find any good ground to
interfere with the said finding, which is supported by
MFA No. 23609 of 2010
evidence. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Registry to transmit the records to the Court
of jurisdictional learned Senior Civil Judge
forthwith.
In view of disposal of the appeal, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for
consideration and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE
YAN
