MAHABOOB RASHEED Vs. YASODA BAI SUGALI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.03.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 17.08.2014 at about 11.00 p.m., the appellant was riding his motorcycle along with pillion rider near Nandagudi bus stand, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore District. The driver of the Indigo car bearing registration No.AP-03 AM-3768 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, came from opposite direction namely Chintamani side and dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained injuries and was hospitalized. The claimant underwent surgery for open reduction with internal fixation and was discharged. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the claimant was employed as a mechanic and was earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. It was also pleaded that the police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable under Sections 297 and 337 of IPC. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with interest. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 did not appear and was proceeded exparte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the offending vehicle was insured with it. It was further pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was not holding effective and valid driving licence as on the date of accident and the jurisdictional police have not complied with mandatory requirements contained in Section 134(c) and 158(6) of the Act. It was also pleaded that the compensation claimed by the appellant is exorbitant and speculative.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and recorded the evidence. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to P35. Another witness namely PW-2 was examined on behalf of the claimant who exhibited 3 documents namely Ex.P36 to Ex.P38. Learned counsel for the respondent did not adduce any evidence. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 4,54,890/- along with interest. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.