MEENAKSHAMMA Vs. HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant has filed this appeal aggrieved by the compensation granted by the Tribunal. The insurance company has filed cross-objections questioning the finding of the Tribunal on the question of negligence.

(2.) A few facts necessary for disposal of this appeal and cross-objections are as follows: The appellant who was working as a cooli has alleged that on 15-11-1983 at about 9 A.M. she was moving in Anaveri-Holehonnur road and at that time a tiller driven by respondent 1 therein rashly and negligently came behind and dashed against her as a result, she fell down and the wheel of the tiller ran over crushing her left hand. She was immediately taken to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shimoga where she was treated. This claim is disputed by the owner and the insurer who have inter alia contended that there is no motor accident and the claim is a false one. The parties have led in some evidence before the Tribunal in support of their respective contentions. On consideration of the same, by rejecting the contention of the respondents, the Tribunal has allowed the claim in part granting compensation of Rs. 12,000/-.

(3.) The Counsel for the appellant submits that the total compensation granted by the Tribunal is inadequate and low. Sri O. Mahesh, learned Counsel for the insurance company vehemently submits that the evidence of the claimant herself discloses that she has not filed any complaint before the police reporting the motor accident. The entry in the wound certificate clearly discloses that she sustained injuries while working. It is further submitted that if it is a lego-medical case, the medical officer would not have failed to report the matter to the concerned police and therefore submits that there is no acceptable evidence in proof of the accident itself and therefore the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.