RAJESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs. VIDYANAND THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act, 1988') for enhancement of the compensation amount, being aggrieved by the award dated 30.03.2007 passed by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Raipur, in claim case No. 74/2004 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant to the tune of Rs. 2,03,500/- under the following heads:

(2.) HOWEVER, the claim was contested by the Oriental Insurance Company by filing a reply in which it was mentioned that the alleged accident does not come within the purview of motor accident. In fact, the accident took place on account of crane dashed with the motor. After framing of the issues, parties were allowed to lead evidence. After considering the evidence, pleadings of the parties and material on record, learned Tribunal passed the impugned award. Cross-appeal has also been filed by Respondent No. 3 saying that the said accident does not come within the purview of the Act, 1988. Even it has been mentioned that the claimant is not entitled for compensation amount awarded to him. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. As far as challenge to the compensation amount is concerned, Respondent Company has not sought any permission under Section 170 of the Act, 1988 to challenge the compensation amount. Therefore, Respondent Company is not entitled to challenge the compensation amount. The company is entitled to raise objection as contained in Section 149(2) of the Act, 1988, therefore, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company argued only one point that the accident in question does not come within the purview of the motor accident & the claimant is not entitled for any compensation under the provisions of Section 166 of the Act, 1988.

(3.) PERUSAL of para-4 of the claim petition filed by the claimant shows that on 22.12.2001 at about 5 p.m. Respondent No. 1 herein was operating motor crane bearing No. M. P.-23/GA/7949 at Bhavani Timber, Ranwabhata, Police Station Khamtaria, on account of rash and negligent operation of the said vehicle by Respondent No. 1 crane came in contact with the live electric wire, as a result of which claimant, Bharat Verma and Ishwar Sinha suffered electric current, due to which the applicant became permanent disable and Ishwar Sinha died on account of electrocution. Claimant Rajesh Kumar Pandey has stated that on 22.12.2001 at the time of the accident Respondent No. 1 was operating crane bearing No. M.P.23/ GA-7949. They went in the said crane to Bhavani Timber, Ranwabhata. They were unloading the truck & half truck was already unloaded, at the time pressure machine was being lifted. On account of rash and negligent operation of the crane, crane came in contact with the live electric wire, as a result of which all of them sustained electric current, his left leg was burnt due to electric current and Ishwar Sinha died on account of electrocution. He was admitted in the Kalda Nursing Home & thereafter to Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai. On account of spreading of poison in his left leg was amputed below knee. He has become permanent disable. Even Bharat Verma has also given his evidence on affidavit. In reply to the above evidence, no evidence has been adduced by the Respondent/Insurance Company. There is nothing on record to controvert the above evidence of claimant and Bharat Verma who were sitting on the motor crane at the relevant time, therefore, from the evidence of these two witnesses, it is established that the claimant sustained electric current & he sustained injury arising out of the use of motor vehicle. Therefore, the claimant has rightly filed claim petition. He is entitled to file claim under Section 166 of the Act, 1988. We do not find any substance in the argument advanced by learned Counsel for the Insurance Company.