CHAVAS RAMJI MAVJI Vs. KHAVAS SHANTILAL KANJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Sec. 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 ('Act' for short, hereinafter) is directed against the judgment and award passed by the learned Commissioner for Workmen Compensation at Jamnagar in Workman Compensation Application No. 49 of 1981.

(2.) The appellant in this appeal is the original applicant, who preferred the application for compensation of Rs. 8,100.00 alongwith claim of penalty and interest by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Act, before the Commissioner for Workmen Compensation ('Commissioner' for short, hereinafter), at Jamnagar.

(3.) As per the case of the applicant, he was serving as a driver of respondent No. I/original opponent No. 1, Khavas Shantilal Kanji and was plying his auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. GTP 734. The applicant was getting Rs. 20.00 per day over and above Rs. 2.00 per day towards miscellaneous expenses from his master. Thus, the applicant was working as a driver of original opponent No. 1. The accident in question occurred, on 5-1-1980. According to the case of the claimant/applicant, he was driving the said auto-rickshaw and was going on towards Street No. 11, Digvijay Plots, Jamnagar. At that time, one boy came, all of a sudden, on the road near Street No. 7 and, in order to save the said boy, the claimant took the rickshaw on the side, as a result of which, the rickshaw was over-turned and consequently the applicant sustained serious injuries on his legs. The applicant was removed to Government Irwin Hospital, at Jamnagar, where he was operated and plaster was applied on his left leg. It is also alleged by the applicant that he is unable to perform the work of a driver. The applicant contended that he sustained permanent partial disability to the extent of 25%. He, therefore, claimed Rs. 8,100.00by way of compensation and also prayed for penalty and interest under the provisions of Sec. 4A of the Act from both the opponents. Original opponent No. 1 was the owner of the auto-rickshaw and original opponent No. 2 was the insurer of the offending auto-rickshaw. Therefore, the claimant/applicant claimed compensation from both the opponents under the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Act.