ANGADALA CHALAPATHY Vs. P ADINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant-claimant and Smt. A. Malathi, learned Standing Counsel representing 2nd respondent.

(2.) SRI L. J. Veera Reddy, learned counsel representing the appellant-claimant would maintain that the Doctor was examined as PW. 2 and the injuries were proved and even if injuries 1 and 2 to be taken as simple in nature, the amount awarded is not reasonable. Even otherwise in the case of injury No. 3, though grievous in nature, reasonable amount had not been awarded. The learned counsel also would maintain that apart from this aspect of the matter, taking into consideration the nature of disability and the nature of the injuries, reasonable amounts should have been awarded for pain and suffering and also loss of earnings. Hence, in any view of the matter the compensation awarded is not just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned counsel also would submit that the insurance company was not made liable on the ground of infraction of RTA permit and even on that ground negativing the relief as against the insurance company cannot be sustained.

(3.) SMT. A. MALATHI, learned Standing Counsel representing the 2nd respondent had placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in NATIONAL insurance CO. LTD. Vs. CHALLA BHARATHAMMA AND OTHERS, 2004 (1) Decisions Today (SC) 842 and would maintain that plying of a vehicle without permit is an infraction and insurer need not indemnify the award of compensation, but the counsel in all fairness would submit that the Apex Court observed that in view of the beneficial object of the act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. The counsel also would further submit that in the facts and circumstances of the case especially in the light of the evidence of PW. 2, the amount awarded to be taken as just and reasonable.