BALYANAIKA Vs. MOHAMMED YUSUF SHEIK

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 injured - claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.04.2016 in MVC.No.1241/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arsikere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that, on 22.02.2014, at about 6.00 p.m., when the appellant was proceeding in Tata Ace vehicle bearing registration No.KA-13/A-7828 near Chowri Koppalu Forest Area, the driver of the Canter bearing registration No.KA-25/D-3385 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the appellant. As a result of which, the accident occurred. The inmates of the vehicle sustained simple and grievous injuries and one Krishnanaika died on the spot. The appellant - claimant sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to the hospital, wherein, he took treatment. The appellant - claimant underwent operation and his right leg was amputated. The appellant - claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the claimant was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and was an agriculturist earning Rs.30,000/- p.m. It was pleaded that on account of the amputation of his right leg, the income of the appellant is substantially reduced and he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 70% to the whole body. Accordingly, the claimant claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest.

(3.) On receipt of notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and he was placed exparte. Respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written statement by contending that the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely, the driver, owner and the insurer of the Tata Ace vehicle. It was pleaded that the Tribunal of the Canter vehicle did not possess driving license at the time of the accident. There was a delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint but it admitted the insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle was in force at the time of the accident. It was also pleaded that there was contributory negligence on the part of both drivers of the vehicles.