RELIANCE GIC LTD. Vs. DEVENDRA, S/O DEVEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A.No.7168/2014 has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the insurance company whereas, M.F.A.No.131/2015 has been filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Since, both the appeals arise out of the same accident as well as a common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 08.12.2011, at about 6.00 p.m. the claimant was proceeding on his bike bearing registration No.JC-40/E-001529 along with other person from Udayapura to Channarayapatna. When he reached Kathrighatta gate, the driver of the Indica car bearing registration No.KA-01/C-9937 drove the same at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bike. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalised.

(3.) The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that he has undergone surgical operation and implants are fixed and he was inpatient for one month and after discharge he took treatment as out paitne. He spent '2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. It was further pleaded that claimant was vending milk, engaged in mechanical work and also agricultural work and was earning '25,000/- p.m. and on account of the accident he was unable to carry on any work and there is loss of income to the claimant and his family members are also suffering and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the driver of the car as well as the rider of the motorcycle were not having valid driving licence and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The age, occupation, income and nature of work and amount spent towards medical treatment are denied. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.1 even though served has not appeared and was placed exparte.