NAVASHANKAR TRANSPORT Vs. DHAKAPPA BIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 14. 9. 1995 at about 1. 45 p. m. Dhakappa Bin Subbanayak was driving the bus bearing registration no. MEC 4803 owned by Navashankar transport insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. met with an accident and as a result of which the bus driver sustained grievous injuries such as fracture of tibia and also injury on his cheek and also on his left hand. It is not in dispute that during the course of and in the discharge of his duties, he met with an accident. On that ground, he lodged a claim petition in WC/ sr. No. 1 of 1996 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, shimoga. After assessing the evidence, the commissioner has come to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled for compensation and accordingly determined the compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,23,650 under section 4-A of the Act. Being aggrieved by that judgment dated 30. 4. 1998, the owner and the insurance company have preferred this appeal.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) AT the very outset, the learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the quantum of compensation determined by the Commissioner is highly excessive and exorbitant. While emphasising this argument, he submitted that the claimant has sustained only fracture of tibia and damage to his knee-cap and injury on his cheek. Therefore, the compensation awarded is unreasonable and excessive. This argument is not acceptable taking into consideration the evidence of the doctor who has clearly stated that the injured-claimant would not be in a position to drive the vehicle and he also would not be in a position to do any other work. It is clear from his evidence as well as evidence of the doctor that because he sustained injury to his left leg, he cannot operate the clutch, as while pressing the clutch he is experiencing pain on the left leg and he does not have sufficient strength to operate the clutch. Therefore, I hold that the disability fixed by the Commissioner does not call for interference.