MURUGAN Vs. SHRI. G. RAMAMURTHY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER in M.V.C. No. 288 of 1995 sustained fracture of right ankle, in the motor vehicle accident. Fracture is mal -united. Medical Board has given an opinion that there is no possibility or chance of reunion. The total body disability is assessed at 30%.

(2.) IT is said that the Petitioner was a cleaner in the Lorry. Father of the Petitioner was the driver of the Lorry in question. Owner -R.W.1 has disputed the fact that the Petitioner was employed as a cleaner in the Lorry. Petitioner on the other hand, has testified to the fact that he was employed as a cleaner. There was no evidence to show that somebody else was appointed as a cleaner in the Lorry during the journey. If the driver of the lorry bona -fidely engages a cleaner in the course of journey, that appointment made by the driver -agent of the owner, shall be a valid appointment and binding on the owner. In that view, the version of the Petitioner that he was working as a cleaner in the Lorry cannot be disbelieved. The fact that the father is the driver cannot be a reason to disbelieve that his son was employed as a cleaner. The income of the Petitioner is to be assessed at Rs. 1,500/ - per month. Accident occurred in the year 1994.

(3.) THE insurer has not produced the Policy and has not let in any evidence to show that insurer has only a limited liability under the Act Policy. In the view, the entire compensation is payable by the insurer to the Petitioner -claimant.