RANGASWAMY C.R. Vs. RAVIKUMAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who sustained grievous injuries during the course of employment is before this Court challenging the judgment and order dated 03.10.2015 made in ECA No.16/2014 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Member, MACT, Bengaluru, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,47,615/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the accident till the date of realization.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant/claimant that he was working as a driver on daily wages of Rs. 250/- including batta in a Toyota Qualis bearing registration No.KA-04/AA-8400 under the first respondent who is the RC owner and employer. On 17.10.2013, at about 11.40 pm, when the claimant was proceeding as a driver in Toyota Qualis stated supra on BengaluruMysuru Road, near Halapanagudde, Kunigal, NH-79, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA48/5611, proceeding infront of claimant's vehicle suddenly applied break, so the claimant lost his control over the vehicle and hit the lorry. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Sapthagiri Hospital, wherein he took treatment as inpatient from 18.10.2013 to 26.10.2013. During the course of treatment, x-rays were taken and it was found that the claimant had sustained fracture of shaft left ulna with fracture of lower end of left radius and right ace tabular fracture and other injuries all over the body and he underwent surgery by spending huge amount.

(3.) It is further case of the claimant that he was hale and healthy prior to accident, working as driver and was earning monthly salary of Rs. 7,500/- on the basis of daily wages of Rs. 250/- per day including batta and he has got a large family to support, as he is the only bread winner in the family. The accident took place during the course of employment with the first respondent. Accordingly, police registered case in Cr.No.364/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The claimant contended that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, sought compensation of Rs. 15 lakhs under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.