NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. RAMPRATAP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed for the following reliefs :-

(2.) The unfortunate accident happened on 06.2.2006 when injured/claimant was travelling in Tempo No.RJ-27-GA0330 as a Driver, which resulted into serious injuries. Counsel for the appellant raised two major issues i.e. firstly the FIR lodged in pursuance of the accident reflects that the injured/claimant was not driving the Tempo but was travelling. The FIR lodger is father of the claimant, who too, stated that his son was travelling in Tempo in-question from one place to another. Counsel for the appellant, thus, on the strength of FIR submits that coverage of insurance was only of driver and none other than driver, thus, the Insurance Company shall not liable to be indemnify and pay compensation as no extra premium was charged for the second driver. The second issue raised is regarding disability of two fingers of foot and indicates 22% permanent disability, whereas the disability has been taken to be 60% by the learned Commissioner.

(3.) Counsel for the respondent submits that owner of vehicle as well as witnesses categorically stated that the claimant was travelling in Tempo in-question and was not actually driving but was travelling as second driver. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court (Bangalore Bench) in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shanthavva & Ors., reported in 2006 ACJ 1222, relevant portion whereof reads as follows :-