APPU Vs. SANJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimant under Sec. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'of the M.V. Act') against the judgment and award dated 27.04.2018 passed in MVC.No.749/2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Vijayapura (henceforth referred as 'Tribunal').

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that on 23.03.2016 at about 16.00 hours, the claimant was riding his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-28- K-4517 on Tikota to Gonasagi road, at that time the driver of Tempo bearing Reg.No.MH-11-AG-4953 (henceforth referred as 'offending vehicle') came from the opposite direction in a very rash and negligent manner and dashed to motorcycle of the claimant. Due to this impact the claimant sustained injuries. Immediately, thereafter the claimant was shifted to Basaveshwar Hospital, Vijayapur for treatment, where he was treated as inpatient and expended huge amount for his treatment. Thereafter, the claimant has filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,70,000.00 on the premise that he was aged about 25 years as on the date of accident and was earning Rs. 10,000.00 per month by doing coolie work. That due to injuries suffered in the accident that occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by its driver, he is not able to carryout his regular work as earlier. The offending vehicle belonging to respondent No.1 was insured with respondent No.2 as on the date of accident, as such respondents No.1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) Upon service of notice, though respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal through advocate, but did not file statement of objections. As such, the same was taken as not filed. The respondent No.2 appeared through its advocate and filed statement of objections denying the averments of the claim petition. It also denied that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further contended that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the claimant himself and that the claimant did not possess a valid and effective driving license to ride the motorcycle as on the date of accident. It is further contended that Tempo has did not have permit to ply within the State of Karnataka. It is further contended that driver of the offending vehicle had not having valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle as on the date of accident. As such, respondent No.2 was not liable to pay the compensation. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against respondent No.2.