NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. JEEVANANDHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/opposite party has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal as against the award dated 10.09.2004 passed in W.C.No,60 of 2004 by the learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, DCL-II, Chennai, in directing the 2nd opposite party/the New India Assurance Company Limited, Chennai-1, to pay a sum of Rs.1,49,731/- (Rupees One lakh forty nine thousand seven hundred and thirty one only) to the first respondent/applicant along with interest at 12% per annum from the date of accident till date of payment of compensation.

(2.) THE Short facts of the claim are as follows- (i) THE applicant was working as a Auto Driver under first opposite party and the first opposite party was paying him a sum of Rs.200/- per day. On 30.08.2001, at about 05.30 p.m., while the applicant was driving the Autorickshaw bearing registration No.TN-07 F-9691, which belongs to the first opposite party, at Old Mahabalipuram Road, near Karappakkam Kandan Wines, the auto dashed against the lorry and met with an accident. THE applicant sustained head injury, deep facial injury, fracture and dislocation of right shoulder and right knee and other serious multiple injuries all over the body and took treatment at Shantha Clinic, Perungudi, Chennai. On account of the accident, the applicant was not able to continue his previous work. THE above accident took place in the course of employment while working as driver under the first opposite party and the first opposite party had insured the Auto (accident vehicle) bearing registration No. TN 07 F 9691 with the second opposite party under policy No,712404/31/01/03363 and the same was valid from 07.07.2001 to 06.07.2002 and the policy was issued by the second opposite party branch at Indira Nagar, Chennai-20. Hence, the applicant had sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 12% per annum to be paid by the second opposite party.

(3.) BEFORE the Deputy Commissioner of Labour-2 and Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Chennai, on behalf of the applicants, the applicant and a Doctor, Saichandran gave evidence and furnished five documents. On the side of the first and second opposite party neither any witnesses were examined nor any documents were marked.