LAWS(KAR)-2011-6-166

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., TGMC BANK BUILDING, 1ST FLOOR, J.C. ROAD, TUMKUR. NOW R/BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, NO. 44/45, LEO SHOPPING COMPLEX, RESIDENCY ROAD, BANGALORE Vs. SHIVANNA S/O. NANJEGOWDA@R

Decided On June 15, 2011
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Tgmc Bank Building, 1St Floor, J.C. Road, Tumkur. Now R/By Its Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Regional Office, No. 44/45, Leo Shopping Complex, Residency Road, Bangalore Appellant
V/S
Shivanna S/O. Nanjegowda@R Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the Appellant -insurance company is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.2.2006 passed in MVC No. 931/03 by the MACT., Tumkur challenging the compensation awarded to R -1/claimant.

(2.) FACTS in brief are: R -1 lodged a claim petition before the MACT., Tumkur stating that on 4.6.2003 at about 3 -30 p.m. while he was carrying a submersible pump and proceeding towards bus -stand of Kestur village, a motor cycle bearing No. KA -06 -S -885 ridden by its rider came in a rash and negligent manner from his behind and dashed against him. On account of the impact, his left hand was completely crushed and he was admitted to District hospital, Tumkur and thereafter he was shifted to Abhaya Hospital, Bangalore where he stayed there for 16 days during which period his left hand came to be amputated due to which he is unable to carry on his avocation which has resulted in loss of income. Therefore he lodged the claim petition.

(3.) YESTERDAY we heard the matter in detail. According to learned Counsel for the Appellant/ insurance company, claimant did not suffer any injury in road traffic accident. The police after investigation have come to the conclusion that one Umesh is running a work shop at Kestur village. The claimant had been to the work -shop of Umesh and when he was in the work -shop his left hand was caught in between the lathe machine resulting in auto -amputation and in order to claim compensation, claimant in collusion with the owner of the motor cycle has filed a false complaint. In view of this, they are not liable to pay any compensation and therefore, he requested the court to allow the appeal and dismiss the claim petition. Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimant supporting the judgment and award of the tribunal requested the court to dismiss the appeal.