SATISH @ SATALINGAPPA MADIVALAPPA MURGOD Vs. GOUSEAHAMAD GORISAB VATNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurer as well as the Claimant are before this Court challenging the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bailhongal, ['Tribunal', for short], in MVC No.766/2010.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are: that the claimant/injured instituted a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation for the accidental injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident on 28.09.2009 alleging actionable negligence of the driver of the truck bearing registration No.KA-25/B 666 insured with the appellant/insurer herein. On notice, the insurer contested the claim. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, awarded the total compensation of Rs.10,33,400/- with interest at 6% per annum. Being aggrieved, the Insurer is before this Court contending that the injured is an employee of the insured, the injured claimant ought to have approached the Workmen's Compensation Court for compensation and the claim before the Tribunal was not maintainable. The Tribunal, without appreciating the well settled principles of law on this point, erroneously entertained the claim petition and awarded the compensation and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel for the claimant/appellant in MFA No.20280/2012 would contend that the insurer has not led any evidence in the claim proceedings. The ground now raised by the insurer at the appellate stage cannot be entertained, not being advanced before the Tribunal. It is contended that the claimant is at liberty to opt for compensation either under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ['MV Act', for short] or under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ['WC Act', for short]. In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in the case of 'SHANTHAMMA vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KSRTC, KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR, 2014 1 LLJ 4' .