LAXMAN LINGOJIRAO MOHITE Vs. DATTATRAIA JAGANNATH BIDIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals can be advantageously disposed of under one judgment as they arise not only out of one Award dated 1st December, 1988, but also in one claim petition bearing No. 75/86.

(2.) THESE two appeals are instituted first by the driver and second by the owner of a scooter bearing No. GDG-9323. Admittedly, respondent No. 1 in both the appeals is the original claimant. The story in the claim petition is that the claimant after closing down his grocery shop was proceeding from Mardol towards his residential house at Veling at about 9 p.m. and when he reached a culvert being on the right hand side of the road, scooter bearing No. GDG-9323 driven rashly and negligently by the first appellant in First Appeal No. 29/89 dashed against his left leg as a result of which he sustained compound fracture -of tibia and fibula. He was immediately rushed to the Goa Medical College Hospital where close reduction was performed on 24th February, 1986. Thereafter open reduction with internal fixation with plates and screws was done and the leg was cast in plaster of pans. According to the Doctor's evidence, this was an emergency surgical intervention that had to be done on that day. Though he was discharged from the Hospital on 1st March, 1986, he was subsequently treated as an Out Door Patient at regular intervals. The plaster of pans was removed in the month of September, 1986 and since the fracture was clinically and radiologically united, full mobilisation was allowed. Upon viewing his condition on 20th June, 1987, the Doctor found that there was a residual stiffness of left ankle joint and based upon the ALIMCO scale it was held that the claimant suffered a permanent disability at 8%.

(3.) THE original claimant in his deposition stated that during the time the accident took place, which was at about 9 p.m. his driving licence issued to him by the concerned office of the Karnataka State was lost. He also made a statement that he could not get duplicate copy so as to produce before the Tribunal. Indeed the Tribunal felt that since the driving licence was not produced by the driver of the scooter, regard being had to the terms of the policy, Insurer was not liable to indemnify on the basis that driver was not armed with a driving licence.