BASAPPA Vs. MALLIKARJUNAYYA

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 claimant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 18.07.2017 passed in MVC No.558/2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raichur. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Claims Tribunal.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 29.05.2015 at about 10.30 a.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on his TVS XL motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-36/X-9246 on Raichur-Sirawar main road, respondent No.1, being driver of the Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.KA-36/B-1142 came from the opposite direction with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed to the vehicle of the petitioner. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture to his right leg and injuries to other parts of the body. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Sirawar and thereafter shifted to Balanku Hospital, Raichur. Petitioner underwent surgery and incurred huge expenditure. He was working as a Dhobi and doing agricultural work as well as retired KPC employee and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m. Because of partial permanent disability, now the petitioner could not carry out day-to-day work. Respondent No.1 being the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle and the said offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. Hence the petitioner has filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act seeking compensation.

(3.) The respondent No.1 did not appear before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied and also the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1. The grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner were also denied. It was contended that the petitioner was aged about 70 years and was riding the motorcycle in a negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle, due to which he fell down and sustained injuries. The occupation and income of the petitioner were also denied. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.