V.Sekhar Reddy vs M/S.Bhagyanagar Roadlines ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3498 Tel

     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

         CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APEAL No.2814 OF 2002

                           Dt:- 02.07.2012

Between:-

V.Sekhar Reddy
                                                           ... Appellant
                                  and

M/s.Bhagyanagar Roadlines, rep. by its Owner and another

                                                      ... Respondents

This Court made the following:-

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APEAL No.2814 OF 2002

JUDGMENT: -

This appeal is by the claimant who had sought compensation of

Rs.1,00,000/- from respondent No.1-employer and respondent No.2-

Insurance Company. The said claim was adjudicated and a

compensation of Rs.52,480/- was awarded as against respondent No.1, while the claim was dismissed as against respondent No.2. The

present appeal is filed seeking enhancement against both the respondents.

2. In this appeal the employer against whom the award was

passed is arrayed as respondent No.1, but the appeal stood dismissed against him by order, dated 14.02.2002. The claim was not allowed so

far as respondent No.2 is concerned on the ground that while the

claimant was holding licence-Ex.P4 authorising him to drive light motor

vehicle, the accident was caused when he was driving Ashok Leyland Tanker bearing No. AP 9T 5116, which is a heavy vehicle. Since the

claimant was not authorized to drive heavy vehicle, the Commissioner gave a finding that there was violation in the terms and conditions of the

policy and dismissed the claim against respondent No.2.

3. Though the facts and circumstances of the case show that the

appellant/claimant suffered amputation of left leg below knee with the

functional disability and his claim seeking to treat the said injury as loss in earning capacity to the extent of 100% would have been considered

in the appeal, keeping in view the fact that the appeal already stood

dismissed against respondent No.1 and the claim against respondent

No.2 was negatived by the Commissioner himself in view of violation of terms and conditions of the policy, no relief can be granted to the

appellant.

4. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

The miscellaneous applications, if any, stand dismissed. There shall be

no order as to costs.

____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 02.07.2012 lmv

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APEAL No.1172 OF 2011

02.07.2012 lmv