RAMESH P.A. Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.

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 injured claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation against judgment dated 27.02.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 11.05.2014 at about 8.20 p.m. the appellant was proceeding in his Innova Car from Poojanahalli to Devanhalli. When he reached near Kannamangala Palya over bridge another Innova Car bearing registration No.KA02-MA-2016 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite direction and dashed the road divider and the car of the appellant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, appellant sustained grievous injures and was shifted to Shirdi Sai Hospital and thereafter to Columbia Asia Hospital for treatment. The appellant remained inpatient for a period from 11.05.2014 to 18.05.2014.

(3.) The appellant filed a petition under Section 166(1) of the Act inter alia on the ground that prior to accident, the appellant was working as machine operator and was earning a sum of Rs.45,000/- and was also carrying out agricultural operations and was earning Rs.5 Lakhs to Rs.6 Lakhs per year. However, it was pleaded that on account of accidental injuries, the appellant has lost his earning capacity and has suffered permanent disability. It was also pleaded that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The appellant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30 lakhs along with interest. The respondent No.1 filed the written statement, in which inter alia it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with it. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and the vehicle was not having the fitness certificate and the permit and respondent No.2 violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It was also pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the appellant and the compensation claimed by the appellant is excessive and is exorbitant. The respondent No.2 filed the written statement, in which inter alia it was pleaded that the appellant in collusion with the police authorities has falsely implicated the offending vehicle and the vehicle at the time of the accident was being driven by an employee of respondent No.2 who is a necessary party to this petition and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also pleaded that the insurance company in any case is liable to indemnify the respondent No.2 as the vehicle at the time of accident was insured.