IQBAL SHAMSUDDIN ANSARI Vs. GAZI SALAUDDIN ANSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was employed as a driver by respondent No. 1 on his motor-lorry No. MRS 8847, While this lorry was on its way from Bombay to Sholapur on July 3, 1968, it met with an accident. Another lorry MHO 7464, collided with this lorry and the appellant got injuries and was admitted as an indoor patient in J. J. Hospital. His left leg was required to be amputated up to the knee. The Hospital Authorities assessed his permanent partial disability at 40%. The appellant consulted one Doctor viz. Dr. Katrak. according to whom the permanent partial disability was to the extent of 70%. He found that the amputation was made in a defective manner.

(2.) The appellant then made an application under Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1923 (hereinafter referred to as the W. C. Act). He claimed compensation of Rs. 12,600 therein, alleging his permanent disability to be total. The employer respondent No. 1 did not contest the claim. At the instance of. the claimant, a notice was issued under Section 96 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the. M. V. Act) to the M/s. Howrah Insurance Co. Ltd., with whom the lorry was insured by his employer, in compliance with the statutory obligation to that, effect, under Sections 94 and 95 of the M. V. Act. The Insurance Co. did not care to appear or seek to be impleaded as party for getting its defences tried. At the trial appellant examined himself and said Dr. Katrak in support of his claim. None was examined in rebuttal.

(3.) The Additional Commissioner, who tried the claim, found appellant's permanent disability to be not total, but only to the extent of 70% and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 9,120 inclusive of costs of Rs. 150 and penalty of Rs. 150. in terms of the Schedule (2) of the said Act, in accordance with his wage group. His claim to make the Insurance Co. liable in terms of Section 96 (1) of the Act, however, was rejected due to his failure to produce the Insurance Policy. The appellant challenges this order in. this appeal both as to the quantum and. also as to the liability of the Insurance Company. He also claims interest in terms of Section 4A of the W. C. Act.