RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MAHANTESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal in MFA No. 22837/2012 is filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 31.03.2012 in MVC No. 2032/2011 passed by the FTC-II, and Additional MACT, Belagavi. The appeal in MFA No. 23659/2012 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The facts of the case are that, on 26.07.2011 the claimant was proceeding on his bicycle from his house towards his land on the extreme left side of the road and when he came within the village limits of Maradishivapur village at about 7.00 hours, one jeep bearing No. KA-29/M-1355 came from behind driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing the horn dashed against the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained injuries and he taken treatment at Nimra Hospital, Gokak and other hospital and also spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- towards his treatment. The claimant has filed claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him on the ground that, due to accidental injuries the claimant become disabled and lost the earning capacity and the said accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. Hence, it is prayed to award the compensation to the claimant.

(3.) The Tribunal issued notice. The notice was served on respondent No. 1, i.e., owner of the vehicle and he remained ex-parte. The insurance company filed statement of objections stating that the claim petition filed by the claimant is false, vexatious and same is not maintainable. It is further averred that the complaint was lodged after four days of the accident. It is further contended that the claimant has not sustained any injuries and there is no permanent disability. He further contends that there is negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and the owner of the vehicle had entrusted the vehicle to the driver who had no valid driving licence to drive the jeep and thereby the owner has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the said jeep who is respondent No. 2 herein and sought for dismissal of the claim petition against the insurance company.