SHIRUBAI Vs. KGID MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Sec. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M. V. Act') against the judgment and award dated 22.05.2012 passed in MVC No.107/2009 on the file of the Accident Claims Tribunal No.VIII at Muddebihal (for short 'Tribunal').

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the present appeal briefly stated are that, on 20.11.2008, at about 4.00 p.m., when the claimant was crossing the road near Nidagundi village, a jeep bearing registration No.KA-28/M-4161 (henceforth referred as 'offending vehicle') belonging to the respondent No.1 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit the claimant, causing the accident and ran over the claimant. Due to the impact, the claimant sustained injuries, such as, fracture of both bones of both legs, fracture of ribs on both sides and fracture of hip. She also sustained injuries to her eye and disfigurement of face. The claimant has expended huge amount towards her treatment. Thereupon, the claimant has filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs. 10,70,000.00 on the ground that she was hale and healthy, aged about 20 years and was earning Rs. 6,000.00 per month as collie and that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, resulting in grievous injuries to her and due to the same, she is not able to carry out her regular work as she was doing earlier.

(3.) Upon service of notice, though respondent Nos.1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel, only respondent No.3 - Executive Engineer, KBJNL has filed its statement of objections, denying the petition averments, age, occupation and income of the claimant. It contended that the accident occurred due to the sudden crossing of the road by the claimant and the claimant alone was responsible for the accident in question. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. That the vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 - KGID Motor Branch, Bengaluru and the policy was valid. Hence, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.