Bangalore District CourtRajashekar vs K.M.Rajashekara Murthy on 15 July, 2017IN THE COURT OF III ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND MOTOR
    ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.(SCCH-18)

                     Dated this 15th day of July 2017.


                  Present: SRI.VEERANNA SOMASEKHARA
                                       B.Com, LL.B.,
                        III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
                         MEMBER OF MACT
                         COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
                            BANGALORE.

                       E.C.A.No.85/2015

 PETITIONER:
 Rajashekar,
 S/o Ramakrishnappa,
 Aged about 25 years,
 R/at Chikkadasarahalli,
 Sira Taluk,
 Tumkur District.


                                    (By Pleader Sri.JD)

                             /Vs/
 RESPONDENTS:
 1. K.M.Rajashekara Murthy,
 S/o late K.T. Mahalingappa,
 Aged about 44 years,
 Prop: Sri. Granites,
 No.401/2, F.8, Swastik Manandi Arcade,
 S.C.Road, Seshadripuram,
Bengaluru-560 020.
                                    (By pleader Sri.KSM)


2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,
Regional Office,
No.44/45, Leo Shopping Complex,
Residency Road,
Bengaluru-560 025
                                    (By pleader Sri.BHS)

                              JUDGMENTThe petitioner has filed this claim petition against the

respondents U/s.22 of workmenCompensation Actfor seeking

compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him

in an accident that was occurred during the course of

employment.2.    The brief contents of the petition are as under:The contention of the petitioner is that, he was working as

a driver in a Tipper Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-04-B-4853, which

is belonging to the respondent No.1. Further the allegation of
 the petitioner is that, on 1-12-2014, at about 2.15 P.M., he was

driving the above said lorry towards Rampura in Chitradurga

district and when the said vehicle reached after 2 Kms. from

Malliravigrama village, then he has lost control over the vehicle

and dashed to another tipper lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-34-3609.

Due to the said impact, he has sustained simple as well as

grievous injuries. Thereafter, the public gathered at the spot

have shifted the injured to Govt. Hospital, Rampura, wherein he

has taken first aid and thereafter, he was shifted to Bhagwan

Mahaveer Jain hospital, Bengaluru, wherein, he has taken

treatment as an inpatient and underwent surgery and later, he

was shifted to Sridevi hospital, Tumkur, wherein he has taken

treatment as an inpatient for more than 30 days and underwent

surgery.   After discharge from the hospital and as per the

advice of the doctor, he has taken follow-up treatment as an

outpatient and till today, he is taking treatment as an outpatient.
 The contention of the petitioner is that, he has spent more than

Rs.4,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other incidental

charges.3.    The contention of the petitioner is that, he was hale

and healthy at the time of accident, aged about 25 years,

working    as   a   driver   in   Lorry   bearing    registration

No.KA-04-B-4853, which is belonging to the respondent No.1 and

drawing salary of Rs.12,000/-p.m. and batta of Rs.200/- per day.

Further due to the accidental injuries, he has suffered

permanent disablement and he is not in a position to work as he

was doing earlier to the accident and as such, he has lost the

earning capacity.4.    The contention of the petitioner is that, the

accident has occurred during the course of employment under

the respondent No.1 as he is the owner of the lorry and the

respondent No.2 is the insurer of the said vehicle and the policy
 was in force as on the date of accident.          Hence, both the

respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation

to the petitioner. Contending the above facts, he prays to grant

for compensation with interest and cost.5.    In response to the petition notice, the respondent

No.1 and 2 have appeared before the court through their

respective counsel and filed the objection statement.6.    The brief contents of objection statement of

respondent No.1 are as under:The   claim   petition   filed   by   the   petitioner   is   not

maintainable either in law or on facts. Further, the respondent

no.1 has admitted that, he is the owner of the lorry bearing

Reg.No.KA-04-B-4853 and the petitioner was working as a lorry

driver under him and there is relationship of employer and

employee between him and the petitioner as contended in the

petition. Further, the respondent No.1 has admitted the
 occurrence of accident as narrated in the petition. Further he

has admitted the injuries sustained by the petitioner and

medical expenses incurred for treatment. But the contention of

the respondent No.1 is that,    he has paid the entire medical

expenses and other expenses to the hospital towards treatment

of petitioner.    Further he has admitted the disablement

suffered by the petitioner and also admitted the age, occupation

and income of the petitioner as alleged in the petition. Further,

the   contention of the respondent no.1 is    that,   the alleged

vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 and the policy was

in force as on the date of accident and he has spent an amount

of Rs.7,50,000/- towards medical expenses to the petitioner and

as such, this respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the

petitioner.   On the other hand, the respondent No.1 prays to

award an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- in his favour towards medical

expenses as he has paid the entire medical expenses of the
 petitioner to the hospital and in this regard, he has produced the

medical bills and vouchers for having received the amount by the

petitioner and his wife and father. Contending the above facts,

he prays to pass necessary orders.7.    The brief contents of objection statement of

respondent No.2 are as under:The   claim   petition   filed   by   the   petitioner   is   not

maintainable either in law or on facts. Further respondent No.2

has denied the relationship of employer and employee between

the 1st respondent and the petitioner and contended that, the

accident has not occurred during the course of employment.

Further the respondent No.2 has contended that, the issuance

of policy to the alleged Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-04-B-4853 is

under verification and if the petitioner has proved the issuance

of policy, then the liability if any is subject to the terms and

conditions mentioned in the policy.         Further the respondent
 No.2 has denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner

and injuries sustained by him and medical expenses incurred by

him and disablement suffered by him.           Further he has

contended that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was not

an employee under the respondent No.1 and there was no

relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner

and the respondent No.1.       Further he contended that, the

alleged accident has not at all occurred during the course of

employment and as such, the respondent No.2 is not liable to

indemnifying the respondent No.1.   Contending the above facts,

the respondent No.2 prays to dismiss the claim petition as

against him with cost.8. On going through the above pleadings, this court has

framed the following issues.«ªÁzÁA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ1.        CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ,         CfðAiÀÄ       4£ÉÃ       RArPÉAiÀÄ°è
     PÁtô¹zÀAvÉ, vÁ£ÀÄ ¢. 1-12-2014 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 2.15
     UÀAmÉ      ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è     1£ÉÃ      JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀ£À       ¯ÁjAiÀÄ°è
     ZÁ®PÀ£ÉAzÀÄ PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄvÁÛ                C¥À¥sÁvÀPÉÌ M¼ÀUÁV
     wÃªÀæ      ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ      UÁAiÀÄUÉÆArgÀÄªÉ£ÉAzÀÄ           ¸Á©ÃvÀÄ
     ¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀ£ÉÃ?2.      CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ         CfðAiÀÄ°è     PÉÆÃjzÀAvÉ         ¥ÀjºÁgÀ
             ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CºÀð£ÉÃ?3.       DzÉÃ±ÀªÉÃ£ÀÄ?9.         In order to prove the case, the petitioner has

examined himself as PW-1 and got marked the documents as

Ex-P-1 to 9.      In support of his evidence, he has examined the

MRO of Sridevi hospital, Tumkur and examined the MRT of

Mahaveer      Jain   hospital      as    PW-2      and      3    and   examined

Dr.S.Ramachandra and Dr.Shivalingaiah as PW-4 and 5 and got

marked the documents as Ex.P.10 to 20 respectively.10.    To disprove the case of the petitioner and to prove

the defence, the respondent No.1 has examined himself as RW-1

and the respondent No.2-Insurance company has examined its

official    as   RW-2   and    got   marked   the   documents      as

Ex-R-1 to R-14 respectively.11.    Heard the arguments and perused the records.12.    My findings to the aforesaid issues are as follows:Issue No.1: In the affirmative
             Issue No.2 : In the partly affirmative
             Issue No.3: As per final order
                        for the following:R E A S O N S13. Issue No.1:- During the course of arguments, the

learned counsel for the petitioner argued by reiterating the

contents of petition and also evidence put forth by PW.1 to 5.

Further he argued that, to prove the relationship of employer

and employee between the respondent No.1 and the petitioner,
 the petitioner has produced the copy of police investigation

papers and other documents and on perusal of the contents of

those documents, it reveals that, at the time of accident, the

petitioner was working as a driver of the lorry and the aid

vehicle is belonging to the respondent No.1 and the accident has

occurred during the course of employment and due to which, the

petitioner has sustained injuries. Further he argued that, the

defence of the respondent No.2 is that, at the time of accident,

the petitioner was not an employee under the respondent No.1

and as such, the claim petition filed by the petitioner is not

maintainable one. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.2

has not produced any supportive documents. On the other hand,

on perusal of the contents of written statement filed by the

respondent No.1 and on perusal of evidence of RW-1, itself

shows that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was working

as a driver of the lorry under the respondent No.1. Further he
 argued that, to prove the disablement suffered by the

petitioner, he has examined the orthopedic surgeon and general

surgeon as PW-4 and 5 and on perusal of the evidence of PW-4 &

5, it reveals that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the

extent of 53% to the whole body and as such, the petitioner has

suffered functional disability to the extent of 100%.     Further

he argued that, the petitioner has proved his case as contended

in the petition by producing proper documents. Accordingly, he

prays to allow the petition.14.   Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

No.1 has filed the written arguments by reiterating the contents

of objection statement filed by the respondent No.1 and also

evidence put forth by RW-1. Further he contended that, the

respondent No.1 is the owner of the alleged lorry bearing

Reg.No.KA-04-B-4853 and at the time of accident,              the

petitioner was working as a driver in the above said lorry and the
 said lorry was met with an accident and as such, the petitioner

has sustained grievous injuries.   Further he contended that,

immediately after the accident, his staff have shifted the

injured to hospital for treatment and during the course of

treatment, he has spent more than Rs.7,50,000/- towards

medical expenses of the petitioner and the same was paid by him

and to that effect, he has obtained the vouchers form the wife

and father of the petitioner. Further he contended that, he has

filed the claim petition before the respondent No.2 for claiming

the medical expenses incurred by him to the petitioner, but the

respondent No.2 has not paid the amount. Further he contended

that, the medical expenses incurred by him may be awarded in

his favour and prays to pass necessary orders.15.   Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

No.2 argued by reiterating the contents of objection statement

filed by the respondent No.2 and also evidence put forth by
 RW-2. Further he argued that, on perusal of the evidence of

PW-1 coupled with contents of copy of police investigation

papers produced by the petitioner itself shows that, the alleged

accident has occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the

petitioner and as such, the claim petition filed by the petitioner

is liable to be dismissed. Further he argued that, to prove the

disablement suffered by the petitioner, he has examined the

doctors as PW-4 and 5, but they are not the treated doctors

and as such, the evidence of PW-4 and 5 is not acceptable one.

Further he argued that, the petitioner has failed to prove his

occupation and income as contended in the petition by producing

proper documents and also he has failed to prove his case as

contended in the petition.       Further he argued that, the

contention of the respondent No.1 is that, he has incurred an

amount of        Rs.7,50,000/- towards medical expenses of

petitioner and in support of his contention, he has produced
 some medical bills and vouchers, but the petitioner has denied

the genuineness of the said bills and as such, the respondent

No.2 is not liable to pay the alleged medical expenses incurred

by the petitioner and the respondent No.1. Contending the above

facts, he prays to dismiss the claim petition as against the

respondent No.2 with cost.16.   On rival contention urged by the counsel for the

petitioner and counsels for respondent No.1 and 2, I intend to

discuss the case on merits.On perusal of records, it reveals that, to prove the case,

the petitioner has examined himself as P.w.1 and he has stated in

his evidence by reiterating the contents of petition. Further in

support of his evidence, he has produced the documents and the

same are marked as Ex.P.1 to 9.17.   Thereafter,    the     counsels   for   the   respondent

No.1 & 2 have cross-examined the P.W.1 at length. In the cross-
 examination, the Pw-1 has clearly stated at Page No. 15 and 16

that:"1£ÉÃ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ ¯ÁjAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ
        SÁAiÀÄA ZÁ®PÀ£AÉ zÀÄ PÉ®¸À ¤ªÀð»¸ÀzÃÉ CªÀjUÉ ZÁ®PÀgÀÄ
        CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ    EzÁÝUÀ,   DUÁUÉÎ   £À£Àß£ÀÄß   PÀgÉ¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ   JAzÀgÉ
        ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è."On perusal of the above evidence, it reveals that, the

respondent No.1 and 2 have admitted the relationship of

employer and employee between the respondent No.1 and the

petitioner. On the other hand, on perusal of the evidence of

PW1, it reveals that, the defence of the respondent No.2 is that,

the petitioner is not a permanent employee under the respondent

No.1 and he has working as a driver of the lorry under the

respondent No.1 on temporary basis.18. To prove the said fact, the respondent No.2 has

examined its official as RW-2, who has stated in his evidence by
 reiterating the contents of objection statement filed by the

respondent No.2.    Further in support of his evidence, he has

produced    the   documents   and   the   same   are   marked   as

Ex-R-13 and 14.19.   Thereafter,   the   counsel    for   the   respondent

No.1 and the counsel for the petitioner have cross-examined the

R.W.2 at length. On perusal of the evidence of RW-2, it reveals

that, he is not an eyewitness to the accident and as such, the

evidence of RW-2 is not much helpful to disbelieve the version

of the petitioner. Further on perusal of the entire evidence of

PW-1, it shows that, though the counsel for the respondent

No.1 and 2 have cross-examined the PW-1 at length, but nothing

has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version regarding

the relationship of employee and employer between the

petitioner and the respondent No.1 and also occurrence of

alleged accident as contended in the petition.20. To prove the contention of the petitioner is that, at

the time of accident, he was working as a driver of the lorry and

he was driving the lorry bearing registration No.KA-04-B-4853,

he has relied upon the copy of FIR with complaint and charge

sheet and the same are marked as Ex.P.1 & 5.       On perusal of

Ex.P.1 i.e. copy of FIR with complaint, it reveals that, one

Krishnamurthy has filed the complaint before the Rampura police

regarding the accident and after receipt of the said complaint,

the concerned police have registered a case against the

petitioner, who is the driver of the lorry and after completion of

investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet

as against the petitioner.21. Further on perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e. copy of wound

certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained grievous

injuries in the above said accident and the said accident has

occurred during the course of employment.22.   On appreciation of evidence of P.W.1 and RW-1 and 2

coupled with documents and for the above reason, I am of the

opinion that, the petitioner has proved that, at the time of

accident, he is working as a driver in a lorry bearing registration

No. KA-04-B-4853 and which is belonging to the respondent No.1

and also proved that, he has sustained grievous injuries in the

above said accident and the said accident has occurred during

the course of employment as alleged in the petition by producing

oral and documentary evidence. For the above reason, I answer

this issue in the affirmative.23.   Issue   No.2:-       The specific contention of the

petitioner is that, he was hale and healthy at the time of

accident, aged about 25 years, working as a driver in Lorry

bearing registration No.KA-04-B-4853 and drawing salary of

Rs.12,000/-p.m and batta of Rs.200/- per day and the accident

has occurred during the course of employment.         Further the
 contention of the petitioner is that, he has sustained grevious

injuries in the accident and due to the accidental injuries, he has

suffered permanent disablement and he is not in a position to

work as he was doing earlier to the accident and as such, he has

lost the earning capacity.On the other the respondent No.2 has denied the above

contention of the petitioner in toto.24.   To prove the occupation and income, the petitioner

has relied upon the copy of FIR with complaint and charge sheet

and the same are marked as Ex.P1 and 5. On perusal of copy of

FIR with complaint, it appears that, at the time of accident, the

petitioner was working as a driver in lorry bearing registration

No.KA-04-B-4853 and which is belonging to the respondent No.1.25.   Further on perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it

appears that, though the counsel for the respondent No.2 has

cross-examined the P.W.1 at length, but nothing has been
 elicited from him disbelieve his version regarding his occupation.

Further to prove the income, the petitioner has not produced

any supportive document. On the other hand, on perusal of the

evidence of RW-1 coupled with contents of written statement

filed by the respondent No.1, it shows that, as per the version of

the respondent No.1 he has paying an amount of Rs.350/- per day

as coolie to the petitioner. In support of his version, the RW-1

has not produced any supportive documents. Considering the

above facts and in the absence of positive evidence and the

recent amendment to theEmployee's Compensation Act, I am of

the opinion that, if the income of the petitioner is considered as

Rs.8,000/-p.m., certainly it would meet the ends of justice.26. To prove the age, the petitioner has not produced any

supportive documents. On the other hand, he has relied upon the

document at Ex-R-1 i.e. copy of driving licence produced by the

RW-1. On perusal of Ex.R.1 i.e., driving license standing in the
 name of petitioner, wherein the date of birth of the petitioner

is shown as 25-5-1985 and the same is considered as date of

birth of the petitioner, then it is clear that, as on the date of

accident, the petitioner was aged about 29 years. Hence, the

proper factor applicable to the case on hand is 209.92.27.    Further on perusal of Ex.P.4 i.e. copy of wound

certificate, it shows that, the petitioner has sustained the

following injuries:1. Swelling present over the upper and middle part of left

of thigh.2. Open wound present over the right leg 5 x 2 cm, below

knee and front of the leg.3. Open wound measuring 4 x 3 cm. present over the left

leg.4. Abrasion present over the right shoulder 5 x 4 cm. and

at right wrist (4x3) cm.5. Fracture of middle 1/3rd of left femur.6. Fracture of distal end of right radius comminuted

fracture.7. Fracture of the middle 1/3rd of right femur.28. Further to prove the disablement suffered by the

petitioner,     he   has    examined     Dr.S.Ramachandra      and

Dr.Shivalingaiah.M as P.W.4 and 5, who have stated in their

evidence regarding the injuries sustained by the petitioner and

also difficulties facing by him. Further the P.W.4 has stated

that, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of

76.4% to the right lower limb and 38.2% to the whole body.

Further the PW-5 has stated that, the petitioner has suffered

disability to the extent of 45% to the abdomen part and 15% to

the whole body29.     Thereafter,   the   counsels   for   the   respondent

No.1 and 2 have cross-examined the P.W.4 and 5 at length. On
 perusal of the entire evidence of PW-4 and 5, it reveals that,

the P.W.4 and 5 are not the treated doctors. Further on perusal

of evidence of PW-4, it shows that, the fracture of right femur,

fracture of left femur, fracture of pubic rami, fracture of right

distal radius and fracture of both medial malleolus and lateral

malleolus of right bimalleolar and fracture of right ankle were

united. Considering the above facts and for the above reason,

I am of the opinion that, if 1/3rd of the total disability of right

lower limb is considered as disability to the whole body, then it

comes to 25.46%. Further as per the version of the PW-5 i.e.

urologist, the petitioner has suffered disability to the extent of

15% to the whole body and as such, the same is included in the

above mentioned disability, then the total disability suffered by

the petitioner is comes to 40.46% and the same is considered as

40% to the whole body certainly it would meet the ends of

justice.Considering the above facts and looking to the age and

occupation of the petitioner and nature of injuries sustained by

him, I am of the opinion that, if the extent of disability

suffered by the petitioner is considered as 40%, to the whole

body certainly it would meet the ends of justice.30.   The    income       of   the      petitioner   is   taken   as

Rs.8,000/-p.m.     and   in    view      ofSec.4(1)(b)of   Employee's

Compensation Act, if 60% of salary is taken for calculating of

loss of earning capacity and the disability is considered as 40%

to the whole body and proper factor 209.92 is applied, then the

loss    of    earning         capacity        come   to     Rs.4,03,046/-.

(Rs.8,000X209.92X40/100X60/100).                 Considering the above

facts, I deem it just and reasonable to grant for compensation

of Rs.4,03,000/-under the head of loss of earning capacity.31.   The specific contention of the petitioner is that, he

has spent more than Rs.4,00,000/-towards medical expenses and
 other incidental charges.   In support of his contention, he has

relied upon the medical bills and the same are marked as Ex-P-8.

On the other hand, the respondent No.1 has contended in his

written statement and also stated in his evidence that, he has

paid the entire medical expenses of Rs.7,50,000/- incurred to

the petitioner and till today, the petitioner has not repaid the

said amount and as such, if this court grants the compensation

towards medical expenses, then he is entitled for the said entire

medical expenses. In support of his contention, he has relied

upon the medical bills and vouchers and the same are marked as

Ex-P-10 and 12. On the other hand, the respondent No.2 has

disputed the genuineness of the     said bills produced by the

petitioner and the respondent No.1 and to that effect, the

counsel for the respondent No.2 has cross-examined the P.W.1

at length, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve

those bills. But on perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it reveals
 that, the PW-1 has denied the signature appeared in the Ex-R-12

i.e. vouchers produced by the respondent No.1 and contended

that, at no point of time, his wife and father have received the

amount from the respondent No.1. Considering the above facts,

I am of the opinion that, when the petitioner has not admitted

that, he has received the amount from the respondent No.1, then

it was the duty of the respondent No.1 to examine the wife or

father of the petitioner to know the genuineness of the said

vouchers. But the respondent No.1 did not do so. Further as pr

the version of the respondent No.1, if at all he has paid the

amount appeared in Ex-R-12-vouchers to the wife and father of

the petitioner, then, it was the duty of the respondent No.1 to

recover the said amount from them in accordance with law. On

the other hand, on perusal of Ex-P-10 i.e. receipts and medical

bills, produced by the respondent No.1, it reveals that, those

bills are the original bills. Considering the above facts, I am of
 the opinion that, when the original bills are in possession of the

respondent No.1, then the amount appeared in the said bills are

paid by the respondent No.1.32.    Further, on perusal of Ex.8. i.e. medical bills

produced by the petitioner, it shows that, those bills are also

original bills.   Considering the above facts and for the above

reason, I am of the opinion that, the petitioner and the

respondent No.1 have incurred the medical expenses of

Rs.3,77,594/- appeared in Ex-P-8 and Ex-R-10. Considering the

above facts and looking to the nature of injuries and on perusal

of the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with medical bills and as perSec.4 (2A)of Employee's Compensation Act, I am of the opinion

that, the petitioner is entitled for the above said amount

towards medical expenses and out of that, the respondent No.1

is entitled for the medical bills amount appeared in Ex-R-10 i.e.

Rs.1,15,000/-. Further on perusal of     Ex-P-8 and Ex-R-10, it
 shows that, the petitioner and the respondent No.1 have spent

an amount of Rs.3,77,594/- towards medical expenses. For the

above reason, I deem it just and reasonable to grant a

compensation of Rs.3,78,000/- under the head of medical

expenses.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case

and for the above reason, I am of the opinion that the petitioner

is entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,81,000/- under the

following heads along with interest at 12% p.a.:Compensation heads                 Compensation
                                                   amount
 1. Towards loss of earning capacity          Rs. 403,000/-
 2. Towards Medical expenses.                 Rs. 3,78,000/-
                   Total                      Rs. 7,81,000/-33. LIABILITY: On perusal of the contents of petition and

contents of objection statement, it appears that, the respondent

No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurer of the
 Lorry bearing registration No.KA-04-B-4853 and the policy was

in force as on the date of accident. Further as stated above

that, there is a relationship of employer and employee between

the respondent No.1 and the petitioner and the accident has

occurred during the course of employment.       Considering the

above facts, I am of the opinion that the respondent No.1 and 2

are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the

petitioner as calculated above. However, the respondent No.2

being the insurer of the alleged lorry is liable to pay

compensation of Rs.7,81,000/-with interest @ 12% p.a. from

the date of accident till the date of deposit. Hence,   I answer

this issue in the partly affirmative.34. Issue    No. 3: In view of my findings on issue

No.1 & 2 , I proceed to pass the following;O R D E R

      The claim petition filed by the petitioner

U/S.22of Workmen Compensation Act is hereby

partly allowed with cost.The petitioner is entitled for compensation of

Rs.7,81,000/-with interest @12% p.a. from the

date of accident till the date of deposit.The respondents No.1 and 2 are jointly and

severally     liable    to   pay   compensation   to   the

petitioner.     However, in view of the policy,        the

respondent No.2- insurance company is directed to

deposit the above said compensation amount in this

tribunal within a month from the date of this order.Out      of      the   compensation   amount,    the

respondent No.1 is entitled for an amount of
      Rs.1,15,000/- towards medical expenses incurred

     by him to the petitioner.After deposit of amount, looking to the

     medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, an

     amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall be kept in FD in the

     name of petitioner and Rs.1,15,000/- shall be

     released in the name of respondent No.1 and reaming

     amount with accrued interest shall be released in the

     name of petitioner through account payee cheque on

     proper identification.Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.Draw award accordingly.(Dictated to stenographer, typed by her, corrected, signed and
then pronounced by me in open court on this 15th day of July
2017).(VEERANNA SOMESEKHARA)
                       III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE &
                              MACT, BENGALURU.ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined for petitioner's side:PW-1:   Sri. Rajashekar
PW-2:   Dr.K.M. Siddesh.PW-3:   Shivakumara H.R.
PW-4:   Dr. Ramachandra
PW-5:   Dr. Shivalingaiah M.


List of documents exhibited for petitioner's side:Ex-P1          True copy of FIR with complaint
Ex-P2          True copy of Vehicle seized panchanama
Ex-P3          True copy of MVI report
Ex-P4          True copy of wound certificate
Ex-P5          True copy of Charge sheet
Ex-P6&7        Discharge summaries
Ex-P8          Medical bills
Ex-P9          Medical prescriptions
Ex-P10         Case sheet
Ex-P11         Letter
Ex-P12         Copy of MLC extract
Ex-P13         Outpatient case sheet
Ex-P14         Inpatient case sheet
Ex-P15         X-rays
Ex-P16         Outpatient record
Ex-P17         X-ray
Ex-P18         Outpatient case sheet
Ex-P19         Ultrasound report
Ex-P20         X-rayList of witnesses examined for respondents' side:-RW.1: Rajashekarmurthy

RW.2: Rithesh Kumar

List of documents exhibited for respondents' side:Ex-R1         Driving licence
Ex-R2         RC
Ex-R3         Tax paid book
Ex-R4         FC
Ex-R5         Copy of 'B' Register extract
Ex-R6 to 8    Copy of policy
Ex-R9         Letter
Ex-R10        Medical Bills
Ex-R11        Claim farm
Ex-R12        Vouchers
Ex-R13        Authorization letter
Ex-R14        Copy of policy with terms and conditions




                      III ADDL. SMALL CAUSES JUDGE
                                & XXIX ACMM.