T YOGARAJ Vs. ANTONY FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the owner and the insurer of the vehicle, viz., motor cycle bearing No. MEX. 2021, and is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th April, 1977 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, in MC (MVC) Nos. 76 of 1978 and 143 of 1976 on its file. The present appellants were respondents 1 and 2 in MC (MVC) No. 76 of 1976.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant that on 15-4-1976 at about 11-15 p. m., he was going on the motor cycle bearing MEX. 2204 on, the road near Kankanadi Hospital having come from Fr. Muller's hospital; that he was going op the left side of the road; that P.W. 3 Adolph D' Souza was sitting on the pillion; that at that lime, the first respondent, Yogaraj, came riding his motor cycle bearing MEX. 2021 from the opposite side with fast speed; that he came off side the road and coming on the wrong side, hit the motor cycle on which the claimant was going on the right broad side of the road, as a result of which both the motor cycles fell down and the petitioner sustained fracture of the right femur and fracture of right patella. He was first admitted to the Vijaya Clinic where he stayed from 154-1976 to 18-4-1976. Thereafter, he got himself admitted to Fr, Muller's hospital where he was treated from 18-4-1976 to 29-5-1976. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running a tailoring shop having 12 tailors under him and he was earning more than Rs. 2,000 per month. As a result of the accident he could not attend to his work for six months and besides he is now left with disability in the right leg. So he claims damages of Rs. 75,000 from the respondents.

(3.) Respondent-1 is Yogaraj, the driver owner of the other motor cycle. Respondent 2 is the insurer of the other motor cycle. The respondents resisted the claim. According to them, the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2021 by Yogaraj. It was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2204 by the petitioner Anthony Fernandes. Alternatively, they cor tended that the compensation claimed was exorbitant.