ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, TEJAS COMPLEX, SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSORE, THROUGH THE REGIONAL OFFICE, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, NO. 44/45, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE - 1, REP. BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. SRI S.B. SHANKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 2nd Respondent was the owner of a maxicab bearing registration No. KA -07 -3266. He had employed the 1st Respondent as a driver to drive the said vehicle. Appellant had issued insurance policy to the said vehicle for the period 06.10,2004 to 05.10.2005. On 02.10.2005, when the 1st Respondent was driving the said vehicle, an accident occurred and one Ramegowda sustained injuries. The 1st Respondent's attempt to avoid the accident having failed, the vehicle dashed to the pedestrian Ramegowda and the 1st Respondent having jumped out of the vehicle, sustained injury, which arose out of and during the course of employment. Jurisdictional police registered a case. Injured Ramegowda filed MVC 860/2009 against the Respondents and the Appellant in the MACT at Mysore. The said petition was allowed and the Appellant was directed to deposit the compensation amount of Rs. 45,000/ - with interest.

(2.) THE 1st Respondent filed a petition under Section 10 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (for short the Act'), against the 2nd Respondent and the Appellant, claiming compensation for the permanent disability suffered and the resultant loss of earning capacity on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The 2nd Respondent did not appear and was placed expert by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation ('CWC' for short). However, the Appellant having entered appearance through its learned advocate, filed statement of objections dated 28.02.2008 and opposed the claim petition.

(3.) SRI B.S. Umesh, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant, contended that, the 1st Respondent/workman having suffered non -fatal injuries for his own negligence, cannot claim compensation. Reliance was placed on the decision in Louis Martis v. Louis Korrea and Anr. ILR 2010 KAR 2600. Learned Counsel alternatively contended that, the compensation awarded is excessive and being against the evidence on record.