ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAVULA KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited assailing the order dated 21.06.2005 in W.C. No. 210 of 2004 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour-1, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder the applicant-claimant was awarded an amount of Rs. 3,02,803/- as compensation as against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in the W.C.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that he was working as driver of auto trolley bearing No. AP 29 T 2193 belonging to opposite Party No. 1 and he was paid monthly salary at the rate of Rs. 4,000/-; that on 31.08.2004, while he was proceeding in the said auto trolley from Hyderabad towards Vijayawada, at about 3.30 p.m., near Toopranpet village, a lorry was coming in high speed and was trying to overtake a bus and he tried to avoid head on collision with the said vehicle and took the auto trolley to the extreme left side and in that process, the auto trolley fell down, as a result, he sustained a crush injury to his left leg and a head injury besides fractures to his right ankle and that P.S. Choutuppal registered a case in Crime No. 140 of 2004 and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where the doctors suggested him that his left leg is to be amputated because of the injuries sustained to his left tibia. The applicant and his parents had opposed for such amputation, and as such, he was discharged from Osmania General Hospital and was admitted in Anurag Orthopaedic Multi Speciality Hospital, where he was operated and nails and rods were inserted into his leg; that for the treatment he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,25,000/- and he has to further spend Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses and that he has taken those amounts from his relatives and friends. Because of the fractures, his life became miserable as he is unable to walk, sit, fold his leg, squat and attend to his nature calls and is limping while walking and the movements of his left leg are restricted. The doctors informed him that he is unable to drive, and thus stated he has suffered 100% loss of earning capacity. The accident arose out of and during the course of his employment with opposite party No. 1. He was aged about 21 years at the time of the accident. Opposite party No. 1 visited him in hospital and informed him that the auto trolley was insured with opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 1 is the registered owner of the auto trolley and opposite party No. 2 is the insurer, and as such, he claimed that both the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

(3.) Opposite Party No. 1 filed her counter stating that there is no dispute with regard to occurrence of the accident, narration of the accident, employment of the applicant, registration of a case by the police and his treatment in Osmania General Hospital. It is stated that the claim of the applicant that he suffered loss of earnings at 100% has to be substantiated by filing necessary documents. It is denied that the applicant was paid Rs. 4,000/- per month towards salary/wages and his age was 21 years. It is also stated that she has paid Rs. 3,000/- towards medical expenses in addition to his wages. It is further stated that the auto trolley was insured with opposite party No. 2 and opposite party No. 2 is liable to pay compensation, and as such, the petition may be dismissed against opposite party No. 1.