AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Mohapatra, J.—Insurer is the appellant u/s 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ''the Act'') assailing the maintainability of the claim application in view of getting compensation under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923.
Mr. P. Roy, the learned counsel for the appellant, has based his entire submission on the last sentence of the statement of P. W. 1 in cross-examination, which is to the following effect :
"...I have already got a compensation of Rs. 7,000/- and odd under the Workmen''s Compensation Act,"
No objection to the maintainability of the claim petition was taken in the written statement of the insurer. No document has been fifed which would have been best evidence to justify the statement of P. W. T.
Mrs. Padhi, the learned counsel for the claimants, submitted that this statement on the face of it is confused by an illiterate helpless lady. The schedule given in the Workmen''s Compensation Act provides-for much more compensation than Rs. 7,000/- on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. This indicates that the statement is without understanding the meaning of Workmen''s Compensation Act.
I am inclined to hold that the submission of Mrs. Padhi has strong force. The prohibition u/s 110-AA of the Act ought not to-be applied on account of a confused statement of the claimant when the best evidence which could have been produced has not been available for appreciation of the point The insurer cannot take any assistance of the decisions of this Court which were tendered on the facts available in the case.
A cross-objection has been filed by the claimants for the balance Rs. 9,000/- which has not been refused by the tribunal. Determination of the quantum of compensation ought not to be disturbed unless the tribunal had applied a wrong principle of law, or, misdirected itself, or the amount awarded either was so inordinately low or was so inordinately high that ft must be held as erroneous; see S.K. Devi Vs. Uttam Bhoi and Another, . On perusal of the judgment, I am satisfied that the determination made by the tribunal is just. Accordingly, the cross-objection has no merit.
In the result, both the appeal and the cross-objection are dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs of this Court.