- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:164 MFA No. 22477 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.22477 OF 2012 (WC) BETWEEN: THE MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BELLARY, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, (CELL), I FLOOR, SUJATA COMPLEX, P.B. ROAD, HUBLI-580 029. …APPELLANT (BY SRI G.N. RAICHUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI B. GOUSE S/O. S. MOHAMMED KHADAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: EX-DRIVER, R/O: HITNAL VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: KOPPAL. 2. SRI B. KHAZA MOHIDDIN S/O. B. MEHABOOB SAB, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: OWNER OF LORRY, NO.KA-34/B-0786, R/O: BESIDE FLOOR MILL, MILLER PETH, BELLARY, DIST. BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE WC/NF 206/2007 ON THE FILE OF LABOUR OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION, KOPPAL, AND PERUSE THE SAME AND JUDGMENT DATED 17.12.2009, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:164 MFA No. 22477 of 2012 BY ALLOWING THE INSTANT MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL WITH COSTS AND ETC., THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SSANJEEVKUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Miscellaneous First Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the order and award dated 17.12.2009 passed in WC/NF No.206/2007 on the file of Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal, by raising ground that there is no evidence that the claimant has suffered fracture to the right leg and x-rays were not produced before the Court therefore, the claimant has not suffered any disability. Hence, prays to interfere with the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner. 2. There is no dispute that the claimant was working under the employment of defendant No.2 as a driver of lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-34/B-0786 and met with - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:164 MFA No. 22477 of 2012 an accident on 25.01.2005 out of and in the course of employment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company submitted that there is no evidence that the claimant has suffered injuries to the right leg since the claimant has not produced x-ray films and reports. Therefore, only on the basis of evidence of Doctor/PW-2, it cannot not be stated that the claimant has suffered fracture injuries. Therefore, prays to interfere with the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant justified the order and award passed by the learned Commissioner. 5. PW-2/Doctor is examined through Court Commissioner and he has given evidence that upon examining the claimant found that the claimant had suffered fracture of patella bone of right leg and there was malunion. PW-2 is an Orthopaedic doctor. Further there was strength decreased in the right leg and the right leg is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:164 MFA No. 22477 of 2012 shortened, therefore the claimant is limping. This is the evidence deposed by the Doctor/PW-2. 6. The Doctor had stated that the claimant has suffered restriction of movement of legs and has suffered 20 to 25% permanent physical disability, which affects the working capacity as a driver. Learned Commissioner by accepting the evidence placed by the Doctor/PW-2 that the claimant has suffered 20% permanent physical disability as above discussed and accordingly awarded compensation by applying the relevant factor. Just because x-ray films and reports are not produced, it cannot be said that the claimant has not suffered permanent physical disability. The Doctor is examined as PW-2 and he has stated that the claimant has suffered fracture to the patella bone of right leg and also deposed that the right leg of the claimant is shortened and also the movement of the right leg is restricted about 150 degree. It is evidence of the Doctor that the fracture to the bone is malunited. Therefore, considering all these aspects the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:164 MFA No. 22477 of 2012 claimant being driver by profession, therefore, certainly it affects the working capacity of the claimant as the claimant was driver. Therefore, learned Commissioner is justified in taking 20% of permanent physical disability and by considering monthly income at Rs.4,000/- and applying the relevant factor 211.79 as the claimant was 28 years old. Therefore, awarding of amount of compensation of Rs.1,01,659/- is found to be correct and justified. Therefore, there is no merit found in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The order and award order and award dated 17.12.2009 passed in WC/NF No.206/2007 on the file of Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Koppal, is hereby confirmed. iii) The above said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:164 MFA No. 22477 of 2012 accident till the amount is deposited by the Insurance Company. iv) The remaining amount of compensation shall be paid by the Insurance Company. v) No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE SRA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 42