Case: Eregowda Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors

1. Leave granted. The challenge in this appeal is to an order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 20th July, 2010 passed in M.F.A. No. 9946 of 2005 by which the claim of higher compensation made by the Appellant was rejected and the compensation awarded by the Workmens Compensation Commissioner and Labour Officer, Dairy Circle, Bangalore was affirmed.2. The Appellant is a driver by profession and in an accident that had occurred on 21st December, 1999 he had suffered certain injuries resulting in the following disabilities as found by the Medical Expert who had occasion to examine and treat the Appellant:"1) Wasting & Weakness of Muscles of left upper limb.2) Tenderness & Deformity of left forearm.3) 2 operated scars over left forearm.4) Restriction of Movements of left writs by last 10 degree and left forearm by last 20 degrees.5) Shortening of 2 cms. Of left upper limb.The Radiological examination showed the following:1) Malunited collar fracture left forearm2) Absence of lower end of left ulna with secondary arthritis left wrist with deceased interosseous space left forearm."3. On the basis of the aforesaid injuries, the doctor had assessed the physical disability suffered to be to the extent of 52%. Accordingly, compensation was worked out by the learned Commissioner by taking into account the loss of earning capacity to be 50% of the income that the Appellant was earning which was quantified at Rs. 4,500/- per month.4. We have heard Shri V.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel for the Appellant. There is none to oppose the present appeal.5. We have perused the medical evidence on record. Having regard to the same and the nature and extent of the injuries suffered which have been extracted above we are of the view that the Appellant would not be able to discharge the duties of driver any further. Though the physical disabilities in the present case has been assessed at 52%, the loss of earning capacity would be 100%.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]4. We have heard Shri V.N. Raghupathy, learned Counsel for the Appellant. There is none to oppose the present appeal5. We have perused the medical evidence on record. Having regard to the same and the nature and extent of the injuries suffered which have been extracted above we are of the view that the Appellant would not be able to discharge the duties of driver any further. Though the physical disabilities in the present case has been assessed at 52%, the loss of earning capacity would be 100%.