A ARAVIND Vs. A ARUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Claimant has filed this appeal being not satisfied with the order and award passed by the MACT., Bangalore dated 25.10.2005 in MVC No. 2834/1999.

(2.) Appellant was the claimant in the aforesaid claim petition. He filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 32,30,000/- with interest on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 27.4.1999 at about 6-40 a.m. he was proceeding to Bangalore City from Nagarabhavi Extension as a pillion rider on a motor cycle No. KA-02-K-5396 driven by his brother. When the motor cycle reached 5th main road 7th Cross, Chamarajpet near T.R. Mill lorry bearing No. MYH-3041 was coming from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and took sudden right turn without giving any indication and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which he and his brother fell down and sustained grievous injuries and he was shifted to Victoria Hospital for treatment. A case was registered by the Chamarajpet Police against the driver of the lorry and he was charge-sheeted for an offence under Section 379 R/w 338 of IPC. Driver of the lorry pleaded guilty and paid fine before the 5th Addl. CMM, Bangalore. At the first instance, insurance company and the owner were not made as parties. It was filed against one Babu s/o Karim Shariff and Babusab s/o Husan Sab. Later on, an amendment application was filed to implead National Insurance Co. Ltd. and one Manjunath as owner of the lorry. Later, National Insurance Co. Ltd. was deleted and The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was impleaded contending that the vehicle in question was insured from 29.4.1998 to 28.4.1999.

(3.) Owner of the vehicle Manjunath did not contest the case. Insurance Company contested the case on the ground that the vehicle in question was not insured by it on the date of the accident. It is the specific case of the insurance company that the policy was obtained by the owner of the vehicle on 28.4.1999 after the accident and the policy was valid between 29.4.1999 to 28.4.2000 and that on account of Y2K error in the computer system, in the policy validity period was wrongly typed as 29.4.1998 to 28.4.1999. Therefore insurance company requested the court to dismiss the petition.