LAWS(KAR)-2011-4-172

A. HARISH KUMAR S/O ANJAN MURTHY, NEAR GALI ANJANEYA TEMPLE, MYSORE ROAD, BANGALORE Vs. SRI. SATHISH CHANDRA S/O MARAYYA, NO. 1362, MARUTHI NILAYA, INDIRA NAGAR, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE AND THE BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, D/O 1

Decided On April 12, 2011
A. Harish Kumar Appellant
V/S
Sri. Sathish Chandra S/O Marayya, No. 1362, Maruthi Nilaya, Indira Nagar, Nelamangala, Bangalore And The Branch Manager United India Insurance Co. Ltd, D/O 1 Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and cross objection are arising out of order dated 16.1.2006 passed in CR.No.39/2004 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Bangalore. The appeal in MFA.No.9565/2006 is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability to pay compensation. Whereas cross objection is filed by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under the order dated 16.1.2006.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to appeal and cross objection are: The claimant before Commissioner contends that he was working as driver of tempo bearing No.KA -02/AA 4239 belonging to 1st respondent and insured with 2nd respondent before Commissioner. On 27.4.2004 he met with an accident on Mysore -Bangalore Road while driving the aforesaid tempo in the course of his employment under 1st respondent. The said accident was caused by a Toyota quails bearing No.KL -11/R 9300 coming from opposite direction resulting in fracture of his right leg, right rib and blunt injury to his forehead and to both hands. The Commissioner on appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to accept that the accident resulting in injuries to claimant has taken place in the course of his employment under 1st respondent and injuries suffered by him arise out of his employment. Accordingly, allowed the claim petition awarding compensation in a sum of Rs.2,62,164/ - payable with interest at 12% pa., from 30th day of accident till date of deposit of same.

(3.) ON appreciation of grounds of appeal, cross objection and finding of Commissioner in the impugned order, this Court find the following substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal: