LAWS(KAR)-2013-11-237

MISS. NANDUTAI Vs. SRI. RAJESH SHIVANAGOUDA PATIL AND THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER

Decided On November 28, 2013
Miss. Nandutai Appellant
V/S
Sri. Rajesh Shivanagouda Patil And The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rep. By Its Divisional Manager Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a claimant's appeal. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.C. No. 214/2006 dated 12.07.2010 passed in MACT, Hukkeri, (for short 'the Tribunal'), she has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The case of the claimant is that on 01.12.2005 at about 6 p.m., when she was proceeding on the left side of the P.B. road near Pharmacy college, a tempo bearing registration No. MH -09/L -2182 being driven by its driver in high speed and rash and negligent manner endangering human life dashed to the claimant from back side and caused accident. Due to the said accident, she sustained grievous injures to both legs and other parts of the body. Immediately she was shifted to Dr. Hattaraki Hospital, Gadhinglaj, for medical treatment where she was an inpatient for more than 30 days and she has also taken follow up treatment. She suffered huge loss towards the medical expenditure. Hence, she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 7,00,000/ -.

(2.) THE Insurer objected the claim petition denying the age and occupation of the claimant and also on the ground that the driver of the tempo did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and hence the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

(3.) SRI B.S. Kamate, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -claimant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law. In the accident, the claimant had sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of left femur, abrasion of femur of the right leg and other injuries. He further submits that she was an inpatient for more than 30 days and that the claimant was a tailor by profession. Though Dr. R.D. Hattarki assessed the disability to an extent of 65%, the Tribunal has taken the disability only to an extent of 15% which is contrary to law. Accordingly, she sought for enhancement of compensation.