NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. K. VANLALTHANZUALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Company as well as Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2011 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Lunglei in MACT Case No. 13/2007 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay the respondent No. 1/claimant compensation for an amount of Rs. 4,23,067/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of default till actual payment.

(3.) On 12.04.2007, respondent No. 1 while returning from a marriage function at Pangkhua, he along with his friends were asked by the driver of the JCB (excavator) bearing registration No. MZ-01D-3659 owned by the respondent No. 2 whether they would like to travel with him on the said JCB as it was going to travel in the same direction as the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 boarded the said JCB and was seated in the lever of the JCB. Immediately after boarding at the lever of the JCB, the driver of the said JCB started jerking the lever of the JCB and after sometime, the lever of the JCB operated the lever in an unloaded position as a result of which the respondent No. 1 fell down to the ground from the lever at about a height of 10 feet. The lever was then lowered towards the ground and as a result of which it crushed the leg of respondent No. 1 for about one minute.The respondent No. 1 was rushed to Sangau PHC where his wound was treated and was later referred to the Lunglei Civil Hospital. However, as the Lunglei Civil Hospital could not treat the respondent No. 1 properly, he was shifted to the Christian Hospital, Serkawn, Lunglei District. Till the date of the deposition of the respondent No. 1 before the learned Tribunal, he was still receiving treatment at the said Christian Hospital, Serkawn, Lunglei. A disability certificate dated 10.08.2007 was issued to the respondent No. 1 by a doctor wherein the permanent disability of respondent No. 1 was shown as 50% - 60%.