H. R. KUMARAPPA Vs. R KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed by owner and claimant against the Judgment and award dated 13.09.2017 made in ECA No.31/2014 on the file of Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation/Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere awarding compensation of Rs.1,49,668/- with interest @ 12% p.a. after one month from the date of accident i.e., from 25.01.2010 till the date of deposit.

(2.) Claimant filed ECA No.31/2014 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. under the provisions of Section 22 of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 mainly contending that he was driver of Cruiser vehicle bearing registration No.KA-18/7574 under first respondent and as per instructions of first respondent on 24.12.2009 he took the vehicle for trip by taking school teachers and children. When the vehicle reached from Shivamogga side towards Sagar and going on the left side of NH- 206 road, near Gilalagundi Village at about 12.10 PM a tipper lorry came in high speed in a rash and negligent manner from Sagar side and dashed to his vehicle due to which three students died and others injured including claimant. He was shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shivamogga for treatment. After first aid he was taken to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal where he took treatment as inpatient. He sustained fracture shaft of right humerus-Type I open, fracture body of right scapula, haemothrax right, pneumothorax left and fracture of 2, 3 and 4 ribs right and other grievous injuries. He has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, treatment charges, conveyance and attendant charges. The jurisdictional police registered a criminal case. He further contended he was a skilled driver and getting monthly wages of Rs.6,000/- and daily Batta Rs.100/- and after the accident he cannot do the work as driver as he was doing earlier. His marriage prospects also remote.

(3.) In response to the notice issued, first respondent did not file objections, but second respondent filed objections and admitted that it has issued motor vehicle insurance policy in respect of tempo trax bearing No.KA-18/7574 belonging to respondent No.1 and the policy was valid and in force as on the date of accident. Second respondent denied that claimant was an employee under first respondent and also denied the accident, age and income of claimant. Further contended that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.