NAGARAJ Vs. KRISHNAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 13/1/2015 passed in MVC Nos.38/2011 on the fi le of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, has f i led this appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that, on 19/12/2010, at about 3.00p.m. the petitioner was proceeding near vi l lage panchayat road, by the side of the road where his father was standing with his friend. At that time, the driver of the tractor bearing registration No.KA-48-/T-6448 and Traier bearing registration No.KA-29/T-1769 loaded with sugar cane came behind the petitioner in a rash and negl igent manner and dashed to him, resulting in the accident. The petitioner fel l down and the tractor wheel ran over the right leg of the petitioner; due to which, he sustained fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mundargi, and thereafter, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubl i, where he took the treatment. The parents of the claimant have spent Rs.50,000/- for his treatment. The minor claimant was hale and healthy and doing agricultural work and also studying in school and earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he has become disabled. Therefore, the minor claimant through his next friend claimed compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-, against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal through their counsel and f i led their objections. Respondent No.1 has denied the contents of the claim petition and the age, occupation and income of the petitioner. He has stated that the accident was not due to the rash and negl igent driving of the Tractor and Traier. He has denied the medical expenses and injuries suffered by the petitioner. His vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and pol icy was in force and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.2 f iled the written statement denying the contents of the claim petition and he has also denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner and medical expenses. It is al leged that the petitioner has also contributed his part of negl igence and the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the effective driving l icense and therefore, he is not l iable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that the Tractor and Traier was used for hire and for commercial purpose. Therefore, he is not l iable to pay the compensation.