ARJUN GANGAPPA KORE Vs. NIRMAL BHAGCHAND BOTHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal arises from the judgment and order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Sangli dated 3. 12. 1996. The Appellant, who is the injured workman, is aggrieved by the judgment and order which directs the opponents, namely, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein to deposit an amount of Rs. 23363. 00 towards compensation, Rs. 11681. 00 towards penalty and 9% simple interest on the amount of compensation from 19. 8. 1991 which is the date of the accident till deposit. A further direction is given that after the deposit is made, an amount of Rs. 25. 000. 00 should be paid to the appellant and the remaining should be invested in a fixed deposit with a nationalised bank.

(2.) THE appellant was working as a driver on a motor truck owned by Respondent No. 1. While driving the vehicle on 19. 8. 1991, the appellant met with an accident as the front tyre on the right side of the truck burst. The appellant was grievously injured and was removed to a hospital at Karad. He had sustained a fracture of the shaft of the right femur besides various other fractures to both his legs and hands. The Appellant was treated in hospital as an in-patient and was then removed to the civil Hospital, Sangli where he was operated upon and treated for a further period of 20 days. He was then discharged from the hospital. It appears that despite treatment, the appellant suffered pain in his right leg and, therefore, was again treated in a private hospital by the same Doctor who was treating him in the Civil hospital, as an in patient. He underwent hospitalization all over again and after a couple of more operations, the appellant was left which shortened right leg. He was not able to bend his leg nor could he bend the foot. Thus, he had become totally unfit for driving the vehicle. The appellant, therefore, filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Act claiming that he was suffering from a permanent total disability and therefore, was entitled to compensation under the act. The appellant had stated that his monthly wages were Rs. l800. 00 and that he was 37 years of age. this application was filed since there was no response to the notice issued to the Respondents on 5. 5. 1993, claiming compensation.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. Respondent No. 1 denied that the appellant was his regular driver and that he was liable to make any payment. According to Respondent No. 1, he had paid for the treatment of the appellant in the hospital at karad and the Civil hospital at Sangli. The contention raised in the written statement filed by Respondent No. 2 was that the appellant had not sustained permanent total disability and that he was not under treatment for six months as contended in the application.