KEMPA SHETTY S/O MARI SHETTY Vs. C. RAMESH D. NO. B/41, PANCHAGAVI MATT OPP: GANAPATHI SACHIDANANDA ASHRAM, GOWRISHANKARA NAGAR MYSORE - 570008 AND UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED DIVISIONAL OFFICE BALLAL CIRCLE KRISHNAMURTHY PURAM MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the claimant, being not satisfied with the order dated 16 -11 -2006 made in WCA/CR -59/2005/NF passed by the Labour Officer and Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Mysore, has filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation. In the claim petition it is contended that the claimant was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing registration No. MYU 7125 belonging to the first respondent with a view to unload the Tobacco goods from the lorry came to the Godown of II, and D Company near Yelwal. At the time of parking the lorry, the accident has occurred. The lorry ran over the left hand of the claimant Immediately he was shifted to the JSS Hospital, Mysore for treatment. He was inpatient in the hospital from 4 -3 -2005 to 16 -4 -2005. His left hand was amputated from forearm. The claimant has contended that the accident has occurred during the course of employment and the vehicle is fully covered under the insurance Since the owner of the vehicle failed to compensate the claimant, the claimant approached the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation seeking compensation for the loss of his left hand from the forearm.

(2.) IN the claim petition, he has further contended that he was getting a salary of Rs.150/ - and batta of Rs.25/ - per day. He was hale and healthy, aged about 35 years. During his prime age, he lost his left hand due to the accident occurred that on 4 -3 -2005. It is further contended that a complaint has been lodged before the Yelwal Police Station and a case was registered as Cr.No. 17/2005 for the offence under Section 279 and 337 of IPC against the driver of the lorry.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation framed the necessary issues and on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Commissioner held that the claimant is a workman comes within the meaning of definition of 'Workman' and there is relationship of employer and employee between the claimant and the first respondent. Further held that due to the accident, the claimant had sustained injuries and his left hand was amputated from the forearm.