SYED IMTIYAZUDDIN Vs. T JAGADISHREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the award dated 06.02.2014, passed by the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT (henceforth to be referred to as the 'learned Tribunal') at Gulbarga, whereby the learned Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.4,14,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a., the appellant has approached this court.

(2.) In short the facts of the case are that the appellant was returning from Hyderabad to Gulbarga on 30.11.2010 in his car. When he reached near the village Sathwar, he stopped his car on the side of the road. While he was alighting from the car, suddenly a lorry, bearing registration No.AP-28/TA-2793, which was being driven in a rash and negligently, by its driver, came and hit the car from behind. Consequently, appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He sustained compound fracture of tibia and fibula left side, fracture ofand infra pubic ramus left side and burn injuries over chest and right thigh, and on other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to APVVC Hospital, Zaheerabad. After taking primary treatment, he was shifted to Kothadia Nursing Home, Solapur. There he underwent an operation. After recovering from his injuries, he filed the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to support his case, he examined himself as PW1, and examined the Dr. Veeresh Shettar, as PW2; the appellant submitted twenty-one documents. However, the Insurance Company neither examined any witness, nor submitted any documents. Relying on the oral and documentary evidence produced by the appellant, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation, as mentioned above. Hence, this appeal for enhancement.

(3.) Mr. B. Ali Mohammad, the learned counsel for the appellant has raised a single point before this court, namely that the appellant was a B.E. Graduate and working as an Engineer with the Indcon Engineering Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Saudi Arabia. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was neither justified in taking the appellant to be a driver, nor justified in assessing his monthly salary as merely Rs.10,000/-. In fact, he was earning in U.S. Dollars. The fact that he was earning in U.S.Dollars is apparent from the bank account statement, (Ex.P12). Moreover, a copy of passport (Ex.P16), clearly reveals that he was working as an engineer and not as a driver. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has faultered in taking his occupation as that of a driver, and assessing his income as merely Rs.10,000/- per month. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be modified by this court.