ANNAYYA Vs. PROPRIETOR TCI HIGH-WAYS PRIVATE LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unfortunate claimant who lost his right leg is before this Court for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dtd. 15/7/2014 made in MVC No.827/2013 on the file of the Member, MACT-V, Bijapur, ('Tribunal' for short) awarding compensation of Rs.13,91,100.00 with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till deposit.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that he was working as a cleaner in the lorry bearing registration No.KA-28/A-4878. On 12/2/2013, they were returning to Bijapur, after unloading the grapes at Bengaluru. The driver of the said lorry was driving in a moderate speed in cautious manner. When the lorry reached Amalapur village, the lorry bearing registration No.HR-55/J-5271 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, in a high speed, came from opposite direction and dashed against the lorry in which the claimant was the cleaner. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Basaveshwara Medical College Hospital and Research Centre, Chitradurga, where he took treatment as inpatient for two days. Thereafter, he was shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi, for further treatment and he was inpatient for five days in the said hospital and underwent operations for the injuries. He was again shifted to Life Line Hospital, Hubballi, where he was inpatient from 19/2/2013 to 5/3/2013. The claimant was operated for the injuries, took follow up treatment and has spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, diet, nourishment and other expenses. His right leg above knee was amputated due to the accidental injuries and artificial limb was to be fixed to avoid disfiguration. The claimant was aged 19 years as on the date of the accident and has got difficulties in day to day activities due to the injuries suffered in the accident. The Respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle did not appear, inspite of service of notice and hence, was placed ex-parte.

(3.) The respondent No.2 insurer of the offending vehicle filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the 2nd respondent is not the insurer of the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55/J-5271 and denied the coverage of insurance policy subject to verification and confirmation of policy issued to 1st respondent. It was contended that the liability of the 2nd respondent was subject to subsistence of insurance contract between the owner and the insurance company/2nd respondent. The accident mentioned in column no.22 of the claim petition was denied as false and incorrect. It was further contended that the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing registration No.KA28/A-4878 are proper and necessary parties and that the driver of the said lorry has contributed 95% to the accident. There was no rash and negligent driving of the vehicle No.HR-55/J-5271. The 2nd respondent also denied the age, income and occupation of the claimant, nature of injuries sustained by him, nature and period of treatment undergone by him and the amount spent towards medical expenses and contended that the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.