IRAPPA Vs. SAGAR KRISHNA BHOGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant is in appeal being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition under the judgment and award dated 06.02.2015 passed in M.V.C. No.633/2014 on the file of the Fast Track Court-I and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belagavi (for short 'the Tribunal').

(2.) The appellant is the injured claimant. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in an alleged motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.03.2014. The claimant/appellant stated that on 26.03.2014, when he was proceeding from Uchagaon cross towards Turamari village, as a pedestrian, a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-22/EE-6197 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the claimant from behind as a result of which, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Vijaya Hospital, Belagavi, where the claimant took treatment as an inpatient by spending Rs.1,00,000/-. It is stated that since the claimant was injured, there was nobody to inform the police and hence, there was a delay in filing the complaint. The injured claimant contended was doing centering work earning Rs.30,000/- per month and due to the accidental injuries sustained by him, he was not in a position to do the same work which he was doing prior to the accident.

(3.) Notice was issued on the claim petition. Both respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner and insurer of the motorcycle appeared through their respective counsel. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle filed his statement of objections admitting the accident. However, he denied the other averments of the claim petition. Further, he stated that the motorcycle was insured with respondent No.2. Respondent No.2-insurer filed its statement of objections denying the entire case of the claimant. Further, it was contended that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It also contended that there was violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: