LAWS(KAR)-2012-8-228

B.T. VENKATESH Vs. JAGADEESH KUMAR

Decided On August 24, 2012
B.T. Venkatesh Appellant
V/S
Jagadeesh Kumar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in MVC No. 887/1999 on the file of the Fast Track-Court-I and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Tumkur, has come up in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded therein and also seeking modification of the judgment, so far as, it pertains to fixing of liability to pay compensation on the 3rd respondent-insurance company. The appellant, who is claimant before the Tribunal is rider of motorcycle bearing registration No. CKM 2388. It is stated that the said motorcycle met with an accident on Koratagere Mavathur Road near Kyamenahalli resulting in injuries to the claimant, of which, fracture of right tibia and fibula appears to be grievous and other injuries are simple in nature.

(2.) In the claim petition filed before the Tribunal claimant adduced evidence as PW1 and got marked Exs. P1 to 13 documents in support of his case. On behalf of respondent, though no evidence is adduced, policy copy was produced and marked. The tribunal on appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to allow the claim petition partially and awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,77,600/- payable with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition to till its realisation fastening the liability to pay the compensation on the owner of autorickshaw bearing registration No. KA-05-A-6339.

(3.) So far as the 3rd respondent-insurance company before the Tribunal is concerned, it is exonerated from paying the compensation on the ground that there is violation of the policy conditions in taking the vehicle outside the Town Municipal Limits within which the autorickshaw was authorised to be used. Unfortunately the accident has taken place beyond the Town Municipal limits within which the owner of the offending autorickshaw was required to ply the same. The claimant being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation as well as finding of the Tribunal in exonerating the 3rd respondent-insurance company to satisfy the award has come in this appeal.