AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The insurer has challenged the liability imposed upon it and also the quantum of compensation granted to respondent No. 1 in each of these appeals for the injuries suffered by them in the course of their employment.
The facts reveal that on 07.04.2007, the 1st respondent in each of these appeals were proceeding in the lorry bearing No. AP-02/U-1900 and in the night, another lorry bearing No. KA-01/B-1437 came from the opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the vehicle in which the 1st respondent in each of these appeals were proceeding. In the said accident, they suffered severe injuries and consequent disability. Therefore, they approached the Commissioner for grant of compensation.
All the cases were clubbed and common evidence was permitted. On behalf of the applicants, AWs. 1 to 4 were examined and in their evidence, Exs. P1-P15 were marked. On behalf of the appellant herein, Ex. R1 - the insurance policy was admitted in evidence.
The Commissioner after hearing the learned counsel and on appreciation of the evidence placed on record, allowed the applications in part. He assessed the disability at 15% in WCA No. 644/2007, 30% in WCA No. 645/2007, 35% in WCA No. 646/2007 and again 35% in WCA No. 647/2007.
Under the impugned judgment, assessing the income at Rs. 4,000/- per month for the driver, Rs. 3,900/- per month for the labourers and Rs. 3,500/- per month for the cleaner, the Commissioner has granted a compensation adopting the proper relevant factor. He directed the insurer to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeals are filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the interlocutory applications and also on the merits of these appeals.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the disability assessed by the Commissioner is on the higher side and she also submits that the wages is also more. In the circumstances, she submits that the impugned judgment requires to be set aside. It is also her contention that as the applicants are the residents of Bellary, they cannot approach the Commissioner at Raichur for grant of compensation.
So far as the claim petition in WCA 644/2007 (MFA No. 31280/2010) is concerned, the 1st respondent Govind sustained injury and disability has been assessed at 15%.
Perusal of the injury certificate reveals that there was a fracture of right wrist and also the shoulder. He was examined by the doctor. The disability was assessed. There was pain in the right shoulder, restrictions in the movements and loss of muscles in addition to tenderness in the wrist and also the shoulder. It is on the basis of the evidence of Dr. Dinesh, the Commissioner has assessed the disability at 15%. His wages has been assessed at Rs. 4,000/- per month. The relevant factor is 203.85/- and the amount of compensation awarded is Rs. 73,386/-. Though he said to be a resident of Bellary District, the claim petitions reveal that he is the resident of Raichur District. In fact, there is no bar for a resident of concerned District to make a claim petition before the Commissioner in whose jurisdiction he stays. That apart, there is no prejudice caused to the appellant by filing a claim petition before the Commissioner at Raichur.
Taking into consideration the wages assessed and also the disability, I am of the opinion that the compensation awarded is not on the higher side.
MFA No. 31278/2010 (WCA No. 645/2007)
The Commissioner has assessed the disability at 30%. As could be seen from the injury certificate at the appreciation of the evidence of the doctor relating to the disability, there was fracture in the right ankle and there was also the fracture in L3 and L4 which was found united subsequently. There was difficulty in sitting and squatting and there was pain and loss of muscles in the ankle joint. It is on the basis of this evidence that the Commissioner has assessed the disability at 30%. The wages has been assessed at Rs. 3,500/- per month. The relevant factor adopted is 213.57. A sum of Rs. 1,34,549/- has been awarded as compensation.
Considering the evidence placed on record and its appreciation, I do not think that either the assessment of disability or the wages is on the higher side.
MFA No. 31284/2010 (WCA No. 646/2007)
The disability has been assessed at 35%. The claimant was a Hamal on the vehicle. His wages is assessed at Rs. 3,900/- per month. As could be seen from the injury certificate and the evidence of the doctor, there was fracture of the lower limbs and the fracture of radius. There is mal-union. There was restriction in the movements. He was not able to sit or squat. He had difficulty in climbing and on the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the disability is assessed at Rs. 35%.
Anyhow, the Commissioner had the opportunity to observe the parties. That opportunity is not available in the appeal. Taking into consideration the assessment of disability and the wages, I do not find any grounds to interfere in the finding of the Commissioner granting compensation.
MFA No. 31281/2010 (WCA No. 647/2007)
The 1st respondent herein has suffered the fracture of femurs, right radius and ulna. There was loss of muscles and restriction in the movements of the right limbs. There was also restriction in the movement of the right wrist. It was due to the mal-union, there was pain. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the Commissioner has assessed the disability at 35%. The claimant was a Hamal. By considering his wages at Rs. 3,900/- per month, a sum of Rs. 1,76,314/- has been awarded as compensation.
Scrutiny of the material placed on record does no reveal any such circumstances to call for interference.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, I do not find any substantial question of law for consideration.
So far as the rate of interest is concerned, it is relevant to note that the appellant has to pay the said sum with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of expiry of 30 days of the accident. In fact, it is from the date of accident, the interest is payable. Therefore, even on this count as well, I do not find any substantial question of law for consideration.
In the circumstances, as there is no merit in these appeals, the appeals would have to be dismissed. Consequently, the appeals are dismissed.
As the appeals have been considered on merits, Misc. Cvl. Nos. 154109/2010 and 153230/2010 filed in MFA No. 31280/2010, Misc. Cvl. Nos. 154110/2010 and 153504/2010 filed in MFA No. 31278/2010, Misc. Cvl. Nos. 154108/2010 and 153188/2010 filed in MFA No. 31284/2010 and Misc. Cvl. Nos. 154244/2010 and 153515/2010 filed in MFA No. 31281/2010 are disposed of.
The amount in deposit be transmitted to the appropriate authority.