LAWS(KAR)-1980-11-7

GURUSIDDAPPA Vs. IJAPUR COOP SPINNING MILLS

Decided On November 14, 1980
GURUSIDDAPPA Appellant
V/S
IJAPUR COOP SPINNING MILLS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 29-11-75, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bijapur, in Misc. No. 65 of 1974, on, its file, dismissing the claim of the injured petitioner for compensation.

(2.) On 20-7-74 the petitioner Guru- siddappa Chanabasappa Balaganur had come to Bijapur. He went to Bijapur Co-operative Spinning Mills along with his friend Mr. Katli, who had work there. According to him, the Chairman of the Mill, Respondent No. 1 in the petition, told them that their car was going to Raichur via Talikoti and if they wanted to go to Talikoti they could as well go by the car. They were asked to wait at the Old Congress Office for the car to pick them. Accordingly, when they were waiting at about 2-30 P.M. near the place, the car bearing registration No. MYJ. 2390 came there and gave them a lift. The driver began to drive the vehicle recklessly fast though the petitioner - claimant requested him to go slow. When it was nearing Bagewadi the car hit a tree on the left side of the road and thus met with an accident. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of his right fore arm. He; has further averred that the 1st respondent is the owner of the car, 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company and the 3rd respondent is the driver of the car. On these averments he claimed compensation of Rs. 37,550 from the respondents.

(3.) The 1st respondent, the owner the car, totally denied having permitted the petitioner to travel in the car, authorising the driver to give lift to the petitioner. That way, the owner denied the liability. The driver pleaded that he was not negligent but that the accident was inevitable since the front right side tyre burst. The Insurance Company in its written statement supported the owner and further pleaded that the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the injuries suffered by a passenger in the car. Alternatively, they asserted that the compensation claimed was exorbitant.