JUDGMENT S.P. Srivastava, J.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the insurer/appellant.
The insurer-appellant feels aggrieved by the award of an amount of Rs. 2,39,280/- as compensation to the claimant-plaintiff respondent, a driver of the vehicle, aged about 34 years, on account of his having suffered injuries resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 40% in an accident involving the offending motor vehicle bearing registration No. U.H.N. 2452 insured by the appellant.
2. The claim of the plaintiff respondent is that the claimant Shri Krishna Mehta was engaged as a driver by the defendant respondent, Arya Central Transport Company through its proprietor Sri Suresh Kumar Agarwal, Transport Nagar, Meerut to drive the aforesaid vehicle. On 12.11.1998 the aforesaid vehicle met with an accident near Modi Nagar while Shri Krishna Mehta was driving the said vehicle in which the claimant and the conductor received serious injuries. The claimant was admitted in the hospital under the supervision of Dr. Ravi Bhagat who operated his leg and put a plaster over it. The expenditure incurred in the said treatment was paid by the owner of the vehicle i.e. defendant-respondent. The claimant was getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant.
3. The Workmen's Compensation Commissioner allowed the claim. The claimant examined himself as P.W. 1. Dr. R.M. Gupta, Senior Orthopaedic Surgeon, P.L. Sharma Hospital proved the disability certificate issued by him showing that the claimant has 40% disability due to the injuries received in the accident certifying that he cannot perform the duty of driving in future and he also suggested that he should not perform such duty of driving in future which would be better not only in "the interest of the claimant himself but the public as well.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the disability of the claimant is not proved and this aspect of the matter was not considered by the learned Commissioner and the claimant is still in the job.
5. In this connection it may be noticed that on behalf of the claimant, Dr. R.M. Gupta, Senior Orthopaedic Surgeon was examined who deposed that the claimant had suffered 40% disability in the leg and not only this he also deposed to the effect that he would not be able to drive vehicle in future and his non-driving in future would be better not only in the interest of the claimant himself but also in the interest of public too and thus, it amounts to his disability of 100%. The learned Commissioner passed the impugned award after considering the aforesaid facts and as such the aforesaid contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant has no force.
6. It may be noticed that the claim of the owner regarding damages of the offending vehicle has already been given to the owner by the insurer appellant.
7. The learned Counsel for the insurer-appellant has urged that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive.
8. The learned Commissioner while computing the total amount of compensation, awarded an amount of Rs. 2,39,280/- taking into account the fact that according to the Doctor concerned, the claimant has been advised not to do the work of driving in future which is also in the interest of the claimant as well as the public.
9. The learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to assail the findings of the Tribunal returned against it but has not been able to demonstrate that the findings can be taken to be suffering from any such legal infirmity which may justify an interference therein.
10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as brought on record, no justifiable ground has been made out for interference in the impugned award.
11. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances as brought on record, this appeal is totally devoid of merits, which deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.