IN THE I-HG-H CGURT OF
'1) 'TED Ti-HS THE 18""
BETWEEN' N
TCOMPANY L'rI_);--, -
__.4-DIVISIONAI;-OFiTix€'gE;'--._ A *
> 'SUJATHA compmx. .
NEAR OLDNB.US;STAE%§D, Q'
HUBLI; REPRESENTED BYE
THE"NATlOIii"AL~ii*¢'$3IjIi2AN§§}E§
ADMINIS'PRATNE'€§'FF1CER», ~ ' %
REGIONAL
BANGALORE. " _
'~ _ (B1ééR1N»1s:.sR1sHAi'1¢.,..ADv.)
Ampaumgn,
-AGED SLFYEARS.
"s/0 FA'i{K_IRAPPA MEDARA.
Rio PLLV!' 140.133,
. _ SHABARINAGAR,
'*KUsUeAL R01'-Ln. ,
" HUBLI.
..APPELLAN"I'
(RESPONDENT No.2
INNCROB.)
..RESPONDEN’I’ No.1
(CRQSS-C)BJEC’I’0R
IN CR.0B.)
c,Iw _.RoR 22 95
2
2. CHANNAPPA J.KA’I”I’lMANI.
}.£AJOR, R,’ Ro.se99,
rm CROSS,
GNAGADHARANA%R ~
SETTLEMENP,
HUBLI.
. (R, SPOND_EN’P.NO.1
. gwsx ‘ v –
.03.; .
(BY SR! R.S.I-IEGDE, ADV. FOR R-1) _ ” ‘ .
THIS APPEAL IS FILED U/s 1’-7:§{1: OF Tm-:._ _MO’PORa’%IEHlCLES ACT
AGAINST mg: ._IuL>c_:MR1~rri__A:a.D AwARD._D.A:rR.o 5-.n.ssEL= IN
MVC No.3/2004 ON ‘1’;{Et”.=~..1jm_i1;;«.c1v1L JUDGE (SR.DN.) 85
ADDL. MACT, HUBLI, AWARDING co.r~§PENsAT1fcR”oR RS.2,96,503/- wrm
INPEREST AT fin PA. FROi’u§;’I’}!E BA1’E_GF P’:i3’3’I’I’IG1’w’ ‘i’ILL ITS DE%Si’i’.
MFA.CR_dB U/dz. _41 ._,Rt;1.E op’ cpc AGAINST THE
JUDGMEN1′ £;Rp_.AwAR;u PASSED IN we N0.8,l?.004
on THE _m1.E E–:A_DDL._Cm L”a*u1:>gE3′ (SR.DN.) & ADDL. MACT, HUBLI.
PAR’l’LYa_ ALLOWENG “THE cmlvm _PE’I’l’I’ION FOR COMPENSATION AND
THiSxE?.§5EAL campiacin FOR FURTHER HEARING. THIS DAY, THE
coujzfr DELIVERED FOLLOWING:
is filed by the National Instuanscc Company
challea the judgment and award passed by the Motor
Vt ” ..Acci:1en£ Claims Tribunal, Hub-Ii, in MVC No.a,12oo4 digposcd of
t’1t:L12i2no5.
. .
A 4
cl1:I11’nnv1t in an-Iwnurnd as %sWflufia’
::_=. –
“Mt:
‘” 1. Tirr c-“‘”””t has R cmss-“jections seeking
Ila /’
MFA 3227′ / 2006
cm M 9.032032 Q OM5
IIII I ‘III’, ‘(\J’LI
3
enhancement of compensation. The appeal cmss-
objections are heard together and disposed my
judgment.
2. On 19.10.2003 when the ‘it was fipj ”
goods auto rickshaw .1§Io.kA-051A-da3é6i;’«–oo. oi clooncr,
from Guledagudda the came near
Madhura Colony in’ out _f the -..sh and
_….I
EEIJJII
neggrent dm’ir.=.g by the» I-iV'”‘1.’V’V€’E’,’ fiainst a s
toppled to the claimant.
The Orthopedic Hospital whom
he as inpatient fmm 19.10.2003 to
1 1. 1 Bad sustained crush mury on his left
.A filed a claim petition under Section 166 of
2 Act claiming compensation in a sum of R35
cla1man’ t examm’ ed. himselfas PW-1. One Dr. Harish
* Eionalteapum who treated the claimant was examined as PW-2.
‘ claimant produced the documents Exs.P-1 to P-79.
lav
U
MFA 3227 I 2006
C /W MFA.CROB 223/2006
4
4. The respondent-Insurance Company contested
and examined one witness Prahlad Vadavi ‘land
-,mr,-d.nce.-1.1 Exs.z.R-1 &. R-2.
5. On consideration of the evideiace on. i’
documentary, the Tribunal fot~;ii<l.. on
account of the actionable on of driver of
the get…-rls rLr.:1r.s_ah_m.Isr. 1;; pleaded guilty befoxe
the "'"'t*–'..
6. As though the claimant
“eeniing”—vRsv.’5l,000/- per month, in the
absence_cl’ to support the said assertion,
the ‘l’n’buna1_Vtooli inmm ..f the Ljnied claimant at
t_ Rs_.”.2;0OOi– per The found that *……l– cl….._..__-aimnnt
‘ at the time of accident. doctor
it the ‘etated that the claiman’ t had suffered permanent
extent of 45%. However. the Tribunal made its
aeeessment of the percentage of disability and has taken
at 35% keeping in mindthc amputation of theflcft” 4
it ” Applyit-.g the multiplier of 16, the loss of futme earnings
\«_./
()Y
MFA 322′?/’§(‘)06
C/W MFACROB 223/2006
5
came to be worked out at Rs. 1,341,400] -. As 1ega1dsVT’jiain and
suffering undergone, the has J’;
an equal sum of Rs.50,000/- is ot’_
m.-mesa. The T.t.1’bunal T
conve”ya”nc- fii’u’i other eases; Fig. of A
marital prospects; R’s.6,0i’)fii-‘ loss” due! l..,,ho
the period of t:reat1nent_ fis.’3i’§,fii’i3i- Wards
medical expenses _is all a sum of
Rs.2.96.503[; by the Tribunal.
7. The anaingoot-.tentiot1_V”0f for the t
appellant ‘ivjtbat Company was not
liable _ bi of compensation as the cla11nan’ t
was engaged as an employee by the
A the and that the evidence on record
was travelling as an unauthorised passenger.
as has éieejn ee..tenr.i.d. that there is a material discrepancy
the n at wlikh the aflen- has allegedly taken
He draws the attention of the s’.1e”‘-t to the
I’
I
nun-if
W’
5
Eu
2%
inecords to show that the time of aoeident is reported as 1.
MFA 3227 I 2006
CW MFA.CROB 223/ 2006
6
a.m., whezeas in the complaint lodged, the time of wcuzfience is
mentioned as 2.30 sun.
8. beamed Counsel appearing fonxthe Ieejiontientetuppotta,
the findings of the Tribunal on the h2fon:&4dw’:’ dsoeet; 4′ Hen
contends that the quantum
Tribunal is on the lower side. made a
2-……..-2″-ti..r-T -seeeemrnent of» derived by the
” i keepirtg.t’n mit’..f1v~t_1~.4.:j’e-1.,e;::n._.;’;t1_”t~:’.t::t;5’td.
9. Havirtg” for the parties and on
mfinvtvperustatt’ the -onvtecold, the points that arise
for cor-.’ei.dt¥.m*.i.n.;’Ji ~L_11 1’18 Ii fitial Elm.-
‘ “‘1._.|
ft’) ‘ ‘”7? –:}’u.er the !’.£t§’£3€:.’3′:.:..- of the r.;,n,ne.l_1t1_nt–Insurance
‘ ~ i’..-W.’=.e£.’-er the of compensation awarded
is __fair and reasonable?
12%
« u
.9
10.} In the claim petition the ciaimarr states that on the
M of accident he was travelling in the goods as 2
Cleaner from Guledagudda to Hubli. In Column no.4 of the
EM
MFA 3227 I 2006
C j W MFA. CROB 223/2006
7
claim petition, he has described his occupation as and
in Column no.5, the name and addnes of “is
Llcscribed as Channappa No donhtt’-the
ms:-.n…..«=«-.y L. its o..i.,–.–_’I_111__ has denicfiuhthe’ fact thatpitho T. A’
was engaged as an emfihyee. pol:-.
the ciaimant has stated a+é.=.sea: -.-.~.-=.-.p.=e;
working as a. Cleaner in the responden’ a*o.2
(insured) and was gettinp’ ‘R_.s.4,000[-. In the
cmss–exam1na’ he was the driver
of the goods’ he was working as
a Though he has stated in
the * was not acquainted with the
owner, he sag.-gesmr-. that the did not
apnciint him. it”ie,in the iight ofthis i1a”‘r'”‘ that is eli.cit…..-‘-,. 1..
..cxoss»c;*r,atni__nafion, the learned Counsel for the appe’uuu’–“t
H t cannot be regarded as an employee of
‘ V J
._11_. I am not prepared to draw such infercire from an
‘” evidence on record. The totality of the evidence has to be taken
note of. To the pointed question that he was not appointed by
M/
\/
–fi_%
1′
MFA 3227 2005
Cjw MFA.CROB 223/2005
8 .
the employer. the claimant has denied thereby statinfithat he
was appointed by the owner. It may not be
d_..s n_t peisonally know the owner. If he
the driver, it is sL._.Ifiinient IQ estabfish p_ the .;’:e:1’ationship”; of j
employer and em–k:v:y’ee. in %t. wet: the ‘RW31,
he has not stated mgsiding the :?éIa’&ns..ip
of employer and employize between respondent
an accident occurred resulting
in crush ‘t0.°the* cllaldmant cannot be disbelieved. He was
” “fling hospitsl with such serious injuries in the nigh’ t
= discrepancy in mentioning the time of the
‘p.c% mo-:.-11.15, that cannot be taken to hold that
no snclii’ accident invohririg the vehmle w”u.”r-ed. on th..e sn._id date.
Therefom, in View of the aforesaid findings r”-1-dad An mint
‘inc. 1, the appel1ant–Insurance Company cannot escape
liability.
35/
MFA 3227 I 2006
C]?! MFA.CROB 223/2006
9
13. As regards the quantum of compensation, the
has taken the monthly wages of the injured at
month. The ‘accident has occurred on
elai’.’nar.t was ‘.-.’or1n..’..m-4! as 9. ti.’-It-____Janer{‘ t1te.j’vag.es”‘taken 7
9
are on the ‘mower
pmduced by’ the claimant to -e-?-‘
paid Rs.4,000[– per that the
‘mbuna1 has awarded a an pain and
suificring and towards loss of
amenities, I::’do”it to undertake a flesh
on re-appreciation of the
mtex’-1′” _ mph that the approach adopted
by the the mm}.-M-.;z=.sa**…on 2-…d. _…__tdlng a.
A_ of Rs.ii;96_,_Su3i- is flair reaaoflle. Though the
for the appellant submits that the amount
palm’ and suflhring and towards loss of
_q is on the higher side, I am not inclined to interfere for
reasons, and also because the monthly salary
is on the modest side.
L,
MFA 3227/2005
c_/w MFA.CROB 223/2006
10 ‘
14. In the result and for the foregoing, both the well
as the cmss-objections are dismissed.
15. The amount in deposit shall
‘l’ribu.ua1.