RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE Vs. RESHAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal impugns an Award dated 21.08.2014 whereby the Employees Compensation Commissioner has directed payment of compensation to respondent no.1.

(2.) Respondent no.1 had stated that he was employed by respondent no.2 Mr. Tilak Raj @ Kale, as a second driver, on the latter's truck bearing No. HR-38-K-7145, which was insured with the appellant-insurance company. He claims to have met with an accident on 06.10.2010 during the course of his employment. He had claimed that on the said date while, on a business trip, when the vehicle reached near Bijapur in Karnataka, he got off from the vehicle for a regular check of the tyres "then his left foot was caught underneath the one of the tyre, when vehicle suddenly started moving. The first driver left the place with the vehicle. The applicant became unconscious and he was taken to the Distt. Hospital Bijapur. He was got admitted in the hospital and remained admitted for the period 06.10.2010 to 10.10.2010. The claimant could not continue his treatment in this hospital as he was running short of money. The applicant asked R-1 for money but he flatly refused to take care of his medical need and therefore, the claimant had to leave the hospital without further treatment. After leaving the hospital, he bagged (sic) for lift and he reached Taboorni hotel and remained there for about a week. From Taboorni he reached Fauji Punjabi Dhaba, Ahmednagar and one gentleman got him admitted in General Hospital, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra and remained admitted in the hospital for a period of 04.03.2011 to 09.04.2011. After this accident, the applicant was not in a position to do any work for his capacity and has become 100% disabled for the purpose of his employment as a driver as his foot has been amputated ."

(3.) The claimant contended that he was not in a position to continue working as a driver as he had become 100% disabled, on account of amputation of his left foot. Consequently, the vehicle being insured with the appellant, the appellant was liable for indemnification for the said loss.