IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cross Objection No.28-CII of 2004 in/and FAO No.3379 of 2003 Date of decision:14.09.2010 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited ....Appellant versus Mange Ram and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Sanjiv Pabbi, Advocate, for the appellant. Dr. Parveen Hans, Advocate, for respondent No.1/Cross Objector. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The appeal is by the Insurance Company denying liability for a claim under Section 163-A made at the instance of the driver, who while working on the tyre got his hand entangled with the glass and suffered injury that resulted in amputation of his hand. The accident has evidently taken place during the course of employment. The doctor, who examined him, gave evidence to the effect that by the amputation of his hand, he suffered a disability of 75% . Cross Objection No.28-CII of 2004 in/and FAO No.3379 of 2003 - 2 - 2. The Insurance Company is in appeal challenging the award on the ground that the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to entertain a case under Section 163-A for an accident that arose by his own negligence. The scope for preferring to filing a petition contemplated under Section 167 of the MV Act is that when a claim is possible both under the MV Act and the WC Act, it shall become possible to file the case in anyone of the forums. The learned counsel for the respondent states that there was no plea relating to jurisdiction taken by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. There is an omnibus issue framed on whether the claim petition was maintainable. In a case where jurisdiction does not exist which goes into the root of the matter, which is again wholly a point of law founded on admitted pleadings, I do not find any difficulty in seeing that it is not possible to sustain the claim under the Motor Vehicles Act. A person, who comes by a harm by his own act, is not a person, who could have a claim made under Section 163-A. The petition was clearly not maintainable. 3. I shall still examine the case as a claim filed under the provisions of the WC Act. This Court is a Court of appeal under Section 30 and, therefore, I shall not feel fettered from exercising the jurisdiction to consider the case under the WC Act itself. Before the Tribunal, the evidence was that the driver was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. If I take the loss of earning capacity as 70% for amputation of the right arm, I would take the maximum salary permissible at the relevant time at Rs.2,000/- and the factor for a person, who was aged 30 years, was 207.98. The amount of compensation that will become payable would be Cross Objection No.28-CII of 2004 in/and FAO No.3379 of 2003 - 3 - Rs.1,74,703.20. There shall be an enhancement of the award passed by the Tribunal which is determined at Rs.91,108/-. The interest payable on the sum shall be 12% from the date of petition till the date of payment. 4. I am making the increase over what is claimed by applying the provisions of the WC Act and the award is confirmed not on the ground on which it was determined but under the scheme of the WC Act. 5. The appeal and the cross-appeal are disposed of on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 14.09.2010 sanjeev