ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTS Vs. MUNINDRA BHARALI
LAWS(GAU)-2018-2-36
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on February 20,2018

Oriental Insurance Co Lts Appellant
VERSUS
Munindra Bharali Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears on call for the sole respondent/claimant.
(2.) This appeal under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has been filed against the judgment and award dated 26.03.2003 passed by the learned Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Guwahati in W.C. Case No. 89/2002, by which a compensation of Rs.2,24,618/- was awarded to the respondent on account of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident which occurred on 31.03.2002. By order dated 10.01.2018, this Court had proposed to hear this appeal on the following substantial question of law: (i) Whether the percentage of physical disability and the percentage of loss of earning capacity assessed by PW.2 on the very date of the accident could have formed the basis for arriving at the compensation amount? (2) Whether grant of interest from the date of filing of the application is sustainable in law?
(3.) The case as projected in the claim petition in brief is that the respondent No. 1 claimed to employed by one Sri Bilash Chandra Bharali (O.P. No. 1 in the claim petition) as a driver of bus bearing registration No. AS-25/7979. While plying the bus with passengers from Guwahati towards Barpeta on 31.03.2002 at about 12.15 PM, the bus met with an accident at Hajo under Hajo P.S. in the district of Kamrup due to brake failure. As a result of the accident, the driver of the vehicle sustained grievous injuries. In view of the accident, a case, being Hajo P.S. Case No. 7/2002 under Sections 273/337/338/427 IPC was registered. The respondent had claimed that he was getting monthly salary of Rs.4,500/- per month and he was 27 years old at the time of the accident and that the bus was duly insured with the appellant. The owner of the vehicle did not contest the case. However, the appellant who was the opposite party No. 2 in the claim petition, filed their written statement and by denying the contents of the claim petition, the respondent was put to strict proof of their claim.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.