BRANCH MANAGER Vs. KRISHNA MOGAVEERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A.No.6906/14 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.6427/2014 under Section 173(1) of the Act 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 leading to filing of these appeals briefly stated are that on 03.10.2012 at about 8.15, the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle from Kundapura towards his home at Koravady, Kumbhashi Village. When he reached near Koravady turn, the claimant switched on the indicator and turned his motor cycle towards right side of the road to proceed on Koravady Road. At that time, motor cycle bearing registration No.KA20-Y-5044 came from Thekatte side towards Kundapura side, which was being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against left middle portion of the motor cycle of the claimant. As a result of aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained injuries and was shifted to hospital at Koteshwara and thereafter, was shifted to another hospital at Udupi where he took treatment as inpatient.

(3.) The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Act inter alia on the ground that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by respondent No.1. It was averred that the claimant was employed as a daily wage labour and was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per annum. It was further pleaded that as a result of aforesaid accident, the claimant lost vision of left eye due to injury on left optic nerve and was advised to take a follow up treatment and to take complete bed rest for a period of two years. It was also pleaded that the claimant underwent surgeries and spent an amount of Rs.45,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, food and nourishment and attendant charges as well as conveyance charges respectively. Accordingly, compensation to the tune of Rs.26,10,000/- was claimed. The respondent No.1 was proceeded exparte. The respondent No.2 filed the written statement in which inter alia it was admitted that the policy was issued in respect of the motor cycle in question. However, its liability is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was also pleaded that the accident took place due to negligence of the claimant and the driver of the offending bike did not have valid and effective driving licence and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The age, avocation and income of the claimant was also denied and it was pleaded that the claimant is not entitled to any compensation.