LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-237

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAHESHAPPA

Decided On June 15, 2015
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
Maheshappa Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant -Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 31 -01 -2007 made in WCA/182/2004/NF passed by the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, sub -Division No.II, Bellary (hereinafter referred to as 'the WCC' for short).

(2.) THE first respondent herein filed a claim petition contending that he was working as a driver in an auto rickshaw bearing registration No. KA -34/4087 belonging to the second respondent. On 9 -6 -2003, on instructions of the owner of the vehicle he was carrying passengers from Bellary to Kudithini. While returning from Kudithini near Veeravanipura, a lorry from the opposite direction came in a rash and negligent manner. In order to give side to the said lorry, he took the auto rickshaw to the extreme left side of the road. He lost control over the vehicle and it fell into the roadside ditch. In view of that, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Initially he had taken treatment at Primary Health Center at Thoranagallu, thereafter he had taken treatment in the private hospital. He lodged a complaint in Bellary Outpost Police Station. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 36 years, getting salary of Rs.3,000/ - p.m. In view of the fracture of right hand and fracture of the right patella, he cannot do the work of a driver. The accident had occurred during the course and out of employment. The vehicle is covered by insurance and hence sought for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/ -.

(3.) IN pursuance of the notice issued by the WCC, the owner of the vehicle entered appearance and filed written statement admitting the occurrence of the accident on 9 -6 -2003 and also admitted that the claimant was working as a driver in his auto rickshaw and he was paying him salary of Rs.3,000/ - p.m. Further, the vehicle is covered by insurance policy and the insurer has to compensate the claimant and hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against him.