J.S.SOMASHEKAR Vs. RAMESH G.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) have been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.02.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which the claim petitions filed by the appellants have been dismissed. 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 giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24.11.2012 at about 7.45 p.m. when the claimant in MVC No.8015/2012 was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-54-E-4677 along with pillion rider (claimant in MVC 534/2013) on Bangalore-Mangalore Road, towards B.G Nagar Side and when he reached near Manasa Hotel, at that time, Tata Indica car bearing registration No.KA-41-A-1689 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from behind and dashed to the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the claimants sustained grievous injuries and were hospitalized.

(3.) The claimants filed two claim petitions under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation on the ground that they were hale and healthy and doing agricultural work and milk vending business and were earning Rs.30,000/- and 15,000/- p.m. respectively and they were contributing to the family. They have pleaded that they have spent huge amount towards medical expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred purely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the offending car by its driver. On service of notice, both respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and have filed written statement in which the averments made in the petitions were denied. Respondent No.1 has contended that the petition is not maintainable either on law or on facts and total allegations made in the petitions are denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the claimant and the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid driving licence. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. The respondent No.2 in his written statement has admitted the issuance of the policy in respect of car. The main contention is that the Tata Indica Car bearing Reg. No.KA- 41-A-1689 was not at all involved in the accident and the same has been implicated by colluding with the owner and the police. It is further contended that the as per MLC issued by the Adichunchanagiri Hospital, there is no reference to the said car. The claimant is not resident of Bangalore nor working in Bangalore. The case has been filed outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The driver of the car was not having valid driving licence and did not have fitness certificate to ply on the public road. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the claimants and the rider of the motorcycle was not having a valid driving licence. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.