MOSES Vs. DHANABAKKIAYAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants have preferred these appeals seeking for enhancement of compensation. By consent of both parties, all the appeals are taken up together since they pertain to same accident.

(2.) According to the claimants, on 17.11.2004 at 1.15 pm. at Pulianthangal lake bend near Sipcot Ranipet, when the claimant in MCOP. No. 339 of 2004 was driving the Maruthi Car, the bus bearing No. TN.23-D-0405 coming in the opposite direction, over took another bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. In the impact, the claimant in MCOP. No. 339 of 2004 had sustained grievous injuries all over the body and the claimants in MCOP. Nos. 338 and 343 of 2004 had sustained fractures on left hip bone, left side 8th rib and right jaw. They took treatment at Vellore CMC hospital and the Doctors have assessed disability at 98% for the claimant in MCOP. No. 339 of 2004, 50% for the claimant in MCOP. No. 338 of 2004 and 60; for the claimant in MCOP. No. 343 of 2004. But the Court below, after considering the evidence, has accepted the disability at 98% in respect of the first case and insofor as the other two cases are concerned, it reduced the disability to 15% and 20% respectively and awarded compensation as Rs. 1,49,000/-, Rs. 55,436/- and Rs. 71,229/- respectively by fixing the responsibility at 60% on the driver of the bus and 40% on the driver of the car, namely, the claimants. Aggrieved against the quantum as well as liability at 40%, the Claimants have come forward with these appeals on the ground that the Maruthi Car being a small car, when it was dashed by the bus, the liability can only be fastened on the driver of the bus and not against claimants.

(3.) The respondent - Insurance Company would contend that they have not preferred any appeals as against the Award granted by the Court below as they accepted the liability at 60%: 40% and also the quantum. But as far as the enhancement is concerned, they would mainly contend that in the case of Paraplegia, entire 98% was taken in to consideration by the Court below and in respect of other two cases, they would only contend that the lower Court, after considering the evidence, has rightly fixed the disability at 15% and 20% and awarded compensation. Hence, they would contend that the Award granted by the Court below is fair, reasonable and correct.