ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BANGALORE Vs. RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter came up for orders on 24-6-1997. While considering the i. As. 2, 3 and 4, I was of the view that it would be desirable to hear the appellant's learned Advocate on merits because the case is an old one and it is essential to consider whether at all it warrants admission. The la. No. II is allowed and the abatement is set aside. LA. No. I is also allowed and the delay is condoned. LA. No. Ill is allowed and conse-quently the amendments shall be treated as having been carried out.

(2.) HAVING heard the appellant's learned Advocate, I do concede that this is a case in which a considerable scaling down of the compensation would have been justified. In the first instance, it was submitted before me that even though the disability was fixed at 80% on the basis of the medical evidence that the authority has scaled it up to 100%. The justifi-cation for this was because the applicant was a bus driver whose arm was amputated and in his evidence he stated that his only source of livelihood was by working as a driver and that the disability disqualified him from performing any such job. The appellant's learned Advocate submitted that if the disability is to be construed at 100%, it should virtually mean that the person's source of livelihood would be reduced to zero. In the present situation he submitted that even if the applicant could not work as a driver, he could perhaps earn by performing some other functions which undoubtedly would yield a lower income but would still not disqualify him from doing any work whatsoever. This is an aspect of the matter which undoubtedly requires consideration but the real difficulty in the way of the appellant's learned Advocate arises from the fact that there was absolutely no contest to the case in the lower Court. The evidence of the applicant has been allowed to go uncontroverted on these points as a result of which it would now not be permissible at the appellate stage to try and water down that evidence.

(3.) THIS Court has observed, time and again that the manner in which these cases are conducted in the lower Courts betrays a very casual and unprofessional approach. This is downright wrong approach because whether the learned Advocate represents the claimant who is entitled to get the best possible compensation within the framework of law or whether the learned Advocate represents the Insurance Company which is entitled to defend the proceeding and point out that the compensation must be limited only to that what is strictly due and not to any runaway figures, it is essential that the cases be conducted with a degree of responsibility, that the drafting be carefully and meticulously done and above all, that in the conduct of the trial, proper care and caution and adequate professional skills be displayed but these factors are found lacking in case after case and the present case is one more of that category. As far as the Insurance Companies are concerned, they are dealing in public money and therefore, they shall ensure that strict instructions are issued and that corrective action is taken in order to avoid this state of affairs.