MAHESH SINGH Vs. UMESH PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Assailing the award dated 30.1.2009 passed by the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Rewa, in Claim Case No. 261 of 2007, M.A. No. 1848 of 2009 has been filed by the owner and driver assailing the finding of exoneration of the insurance company, while M.A. No. 2783 of 2009 has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation allegedly contending that the injured has suffered permanent disability on account of comminuted fracture in tibia and fibula bones, however, the enhancement may be directed.

(2.) On perusal of the record, it appears how the accident took place, negligence of the driver, injuries received by the claimant and other issues proving the same are not disputed, therefore, the said facts are not required to be stated in detail. However, the driver has filed the appeal on the ground that the exoneration of the insurance company is unsustainable because the insurance company has taken a premium for two employees without disclosing their posts (designation). However, the cleaner would fall within the said class of employees, therefore, the exoneration of the insurance company by the Tribunal holding that the risk of the cleaner is not covered under the policy, may be set aside and the finding of joint and several liability be recorded for payment of compensation, if any, awarded.

(3.) Mr. Vivek Baderia, learned counsel for respondent-claimant has contended that it is a case wherein the injured has suffered permanent disability and the certificate as well as the statement of doctor is there, but the Claims Tribunal disbelieving thereupon stated that the certificate of the Board has not been produced, therefore, looking to the injuries received by injured-claimant, i.e., comminuted fracture of tibia and fibula for which he had undergone treatment for one year, the compensation of Rs. 68,534 is inadequate, which may reasonably be enhanced.