LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-370

ROOPA Vs. H. PRASANNA

Decided On January 22, 2020
ROOPA Appellant
V/S
H. Prasanna Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal' for short), by which their claim for compensation has been dismissed.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that as per the version of the claimants, on 20.06.2011 at 2.00 p.m. husband of the claimant No.1 Durgappa was waiting near bus s of Joldal village for the bus. At that time, one Prasanna Kumar who was riding the bike came and picked up husband of claimant No.1. It was further averred that the aforesaid Prasanna Kumar drove the bike in a rash and negligent manner and dashed one Ashok who was walking on the road. On account of the aforesaid accident, the husband of claimant No.1 who was traveling as pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. He was immediately shifted to the hospital. The police authorities registered the case against the bike rider on the complaint of claimant No.6 for the offences under Section 279, 337 read with Section 304(A) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

(3.) Thereafter the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- for treatment of aforesaid Durgappa. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 though served did not file any objections. The respondent No.3 filed the statement of objection in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the insurance policy was issued in favour of Shivalingaapppa in respect of bike in question and not in favour of respondent No.2. It was also pleaded that the real owner was not impleaded and the petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and there was a delay of 16 days in filing the complaint. It was also averred that the rider of the motor cycle had not sustained any injuries. In other words the factum of accident was denied by the insurance company.