NILAKANTHA NAGAR Vs. GENERAL MANAGER/MANAGING DIRECTOR, TELCO
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
General Manager/Managing Director, Telco
Click here to view full judgement.
Biswanath Rath,J. -
(1.) This appeal is at the instance of the claimant for enhancement of compensation.
(2.) Short background involving the case is that on 18.07.2003 at about 4.45 P.M. while the claimant was travelling in an Auto-Rikshaw bearing Registration No.OR-02-W-2921 on the left side of the road near Fire Station Kali Temple the offending Tata Chassis bearing Registration No.JH-05-A-0956 came and dashed against the Auto-Rikshaw resulting rash and negligent driving of the driver therein involving such accident. The claimant received grievous injuries and with the help of the local people he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhubaneswar. For requiring emergency attention with qualified Doctor, the injured was referred to S.C.B. Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack where he was treated as an indoor patient. In the premises that the injured was an Auto Garage Mechanic and was earning RS.2500/- per month and the driver of offending vehicle having valid licence claimant filed claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act seeking an award of Rs.99,500/- as compensation.
(3.) Receipt of notice, the owner of the offending vehicle did not contest and was set ex-parte. On the contrary, the Insurance Company-respondent no.2 contesting in the matter filed written statement denying the allegation. The matter was contested by the Insurance Company on the premises that since charge-sheet involving criminal case against the driver indicated the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the Insurance Company has no responsibility. Basing on the pleading, the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack framed the following issues:
1) Whether due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regn. No.JH-05-A- 0956 (Tata Chassis), the alleged accident took place and in that accident the petitioner sustained injuries?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation? If so what should be the extent?
3) Whether all the Opp.Parties or any of the Opp. Party is/are liable to pay compensation?
4) To what other relief if any, the petitioner is entitled to?
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.