RAMESH S.P. Vs. M.R. SUNITHA

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 against the judgment dated 17.03.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short), by which petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 24.10.2013 at about 1.30 p.m. the claimant was walking on the left side of the road near KSRTC Bus stand, Arasikere, at that time, driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA44/5072 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and in a high speed and dashed against the claimant. The claimant sustained multiple fractures on his left foot and other injuries on his body. The claimant was admitted to J.C.Hospital, Arasikere, and thereafter, was shifted to Manipal Hospital, Udupi for further treatment. The claimant underwent major operations thrice and took treatment as inpatient for 21 days.

(3.) The claimant thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that the claimant was engaged in agricultural work as well as milk wending business and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month It was further pleaded that on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident, he has suffered permanent disability. It was also pleaded that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Ace vehicle. The claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25,00.000/- along with interest. The respondent No.1 viz., the owner in the written statement pleaded that the driver of the Tata Ace Vehicle possessed valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured at the time of accident and the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation. The respondent No.2 viz., the insurance company filed the written statement in which averments made in the claim petition was denied and the involvement of the vehicle was also denied. It was further pleaded that the accident was caused by a Tata 407 Vehicle. It was further pleaded that claimant in collusion with police and owner of the vehicle has lodged the complaint and has falsely implicated the insured vehicle.