Sri Panduranga S/O Mahadev ... vs M/S Subhash Metal Industries
2022 Latest Caselaw 3584 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH

     DATED THIS THE 3 R D DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                             BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

                  M.F.A. No.21331/2010 (WC)

BETWEEN:

SRI PANDURANGA S/O MAHADEV RANABARE,
AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: SPINNER,
R/O PLOT NO. 1627, MAGADUM GALLI,
NIPPANI-591237, TAL : CHIKKODI-591201,
DIST: BELGAUM.
                                                       ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MADANMOHAN M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE)

AND :

1.      M/S. SUBHASH METAL INDUSTRIES,
        MANGALAVAR PETH, NIPPANI-591237,
        TAL: CHIKKODI-591201DIST: BELGAUM.

2.      SRI. SANDEEP S/O BABURAV PATIL,
        BHEEMANAGAR, NIPPANI-591237,
        TAL : CHIKKODI-591201DIST: BELGAUM.

3.      THE MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
        BRANCH, NIPPANI-591237,
        TAL : CHIKKODI-591201DIST: BELGAUM.

                                                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT ARUNA R. DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 -SERVED AND
UNREPRESENTED)

        THIS   APPEAL   IS   FILED   UNDER   SECTION    30(1)   OF
WORKMAN COMPENSTION ACT, 1923 PRAYING TO MODIFY THE
                                :2:



JUDGMENT       AND      ORDER         DATED        30.12.2009       IN
WCA/SR.NO.67/2008      PASSED    BY    THE    COURT OF LABOUR
OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMAN COMPENSATION
SUB-DIVISION        NO.1,     BELGAUM        AND     AWARD         THE
COMPENSATION AS CLAIMED IN THE CLAIM PETITION, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.


     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                             JUDGMENT

In respect of an accident which occurred during

the course of employment, the workmen preferred a

claim.

2. The Commissioner on assessing the

evidence of the medical practitioner has come to the

conclusion that the claimant has suffered 12%

disability and consequently he has taken the loss of

earning capacity at 12% and awarded a sum of

Rs.24,400/-.

3. In my view, the assessment of loss of

earning capacity cannot be said to be in any way

improper and arbitrary, necessitating interference in

an appeal under Section 30(1) of the Workman

Compensation Act, 1923.

4. I find no substantial question of law arising

for consideration in this appeal and the same is

accordingly dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE ckk