RAFEEQ Vs. MAHMUNA PATEL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT /claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.01.2012 passed by the Labour Officer -cum -Commissioner for Workmen Compensation at Bidar in WCA/NFC/CR -04 of 2011 with regard to quantum of compensation so also challenging the legality and correctness of the same, has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE appellant has contended in his claim petition that he was working in the lorry belonging to respondent No. 1 and as per his instructions he has loaded the iron tower channels and for the purpose of delivery, the lorry was taken from Hyderabad to Katiyagaon Ahmed. On 10.02.2009 at 9.00 a.m. reached Katiyagaon and stopped the lorry and the workers were unloading the iron tower channels. At that time the said tower channel slipped from the hands of the worker and fell on the right leg of the claimant. Because of that reason, claimant sustained injuries to his right leg and immediately he was taken to the hospital at Ahmedabad Tappan Hospital and admitted. After providing the first aid treatment, appellant was shifted to Dr. Bhupendra Sagar Orthopedic Hospital for better treatment on 16.02.2009 and he was admitted as inpatient. Surgery was conducted in respect of right leg and there was amputation below the knee portion. He has spent Rs. 1,00,000/ - for medical expenses and became totally disabled because of the said accident and lost his right leg, and with regard to the said accident, case was registered in Cr. No. 51/2009. Hence, he has claimed Rs. 10,00,000/ - stating that he was earning monthly income of Rs. 8,000/ - with daily allowance of Rs. 150/ - and as there is 100% disability.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 2/Insurance Company has disputed the averments made in the petition that when the workers were unloading the iron tower channels, accidentally it was slipped and fell on the leg of the appellant. It is contended that it is because of the negligence on the part of appellant himself The respondent No. 2/Insurance Company has also challenged the income of the appellant. It is their further contention that the owner of the vehicle has not informed the Insurance Company about he engaging the said driver. Hence, there is violation of insurance policy and hence, sought to dismiss the petition.