Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellantClaimant filed M.F.A. No.24385 of 2011 MV for enhancement of the companypensation before the High Court.
The appellant was working as a cleaner in a lorry bearing Regn.
First Appeal No.
The Insurance Company respondent No.1 herein also felt aggrieved and filed M.F.A. No.23729 of 2011 MV before the High Court for setting aside the award passed by the Tribunal.
Due to the aforementioned injuries sustained by the appellant, he has become permanently disabled to do the work which he was doing before the accident.
In other words, the appellant was able to make out a case for further enhancement in the quantum of companypensation awarded by the Tribunal and, therefore, he is entitled for enhancement in the award of companypensation on the grounds mentioned below.
It was companytested by the respondents.
from the date of claim petition till payment against the respondents jointly and severally.
The High Court, by order dated 19.03.2015, dismissed both the appeals.
So far as the Insurance Company respondent No.1 herein is companycerned, they have number filed any appeal against the impugned order.
So far as the liability was companycerned, the Tribunal held that the policy was a package policy equivalent to companyprehensive policy, which companyers the risk of cleaner also.
Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant claimant has filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
We do number agree with the submission urged by the learned companynsel for respondent No.1Insurance Company for the abovementioned reasons given by us.It was held that the monthly income of the appellantclaimant was Rs.4000/, that the accident occurred due to sole negligence of the driver of offending vehicle, that the appellant sustained partial but permanent disability in the whole body to the extent of 25 and that the age of the appellant was 25 years on the date of accident.
By award dated 12.04.2011, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellants claim petition.
At the relevant time, it was insured with respondent No.1.
On 05.12.2004, at about 1.00 p.m. near VGM Factory, Belgal Road, Bellary, when the appellant was standing in front of the abovementioned lorry for the purpose of loading iron ore, the driver of the lorry moved the vehicle without giving any signal or horn and dashed it against him.
The appellant filed a claim petition bearing V.C. No.711 of 2010 before the MACTII at Bellary under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and claimed companypensation from the respondents.
In our companysidered opinion, the High Court erred in dismissing the claimants appeal and thus companymitted an error in number further enhancing the companypensation.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and accordingly enhance the companypensation awarded by the Tribunal to the extent indicated infra.
The appellant was then taken to VIMS Hospital, Bellary for the medical treatment.
At the time of accident, the appellant was 25 years of age and earning Rs.4000/ per month.
The Tribunal accordingly awarded a total companypensation of Rs.3,43,000/ with interest payable at the rate of 8 p.a.
24385 of 2011 MV whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the claimant appellant herein and affirmed the judgment and Signature Not Verified award dated 12.04.2011 passed by the Member, Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA MACTII, Bellary in M.V.C. No.711 of 2010.
The short question, which arises for companysideration in this appeal, is whether any case is made out on facts evidence for further enhancement of the companypensation awarded by the Tribunal to the appellant claimant .
The appellant claimed to have spent a substantial sum towards his medical treatment.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by the claimant against the final judgment and order dated 19.03.2015 passed by the High Court of Karnataka Bench at Dharwad in Misc.
AP21/V4682 belonging to respondent No.2 herein.
