PATIL LAKSHMAN GOWDA @ PUTIL L.J., S/O. LATE CHANNAPPA GOWDA Vs. P. VELU, S/O. PONNUSWAMY, NO. 1566, PILLAGANAHALLI, KOTTAGERE KOLI FARM LAYOUT, B.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-83 AND THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DAB-1, 3RD FLOOR, UNITY BUILDING ANNEX,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellant under Section );">166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained is challenged in this appeal. The facts reveal that on 02.09.2008 at about 3.30 p.m. the appellant was proceeding on extreme left edge of the road at J.P. Nagar. At that time, suddenly a motorcycle bearing reg. No. KA 05 -EU 3806 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant and thereby he sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to different hospitals and while under treatment, the Police recorded the complaint, registered the crime and held the investigation. The appellant having sustained grievous injuries has claimed compensation on different heads before the Tribunal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 2.

(3.) EX .P1 is the certified copy of the FIR and it reveals that the accident occurred on 02.09.2008 about 3.30 p.m. Evidence of P.W.1 reveals that after the accident the public joined at the place of the accident and even the rider was caught by them. It is thereafter that the appellant was shifted to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. EX.P2 is the certified copy of the complaint lodged and P.W.1. In his complaint, he also states about the arrival of the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and hit him. He also mentioned the registration number of the motorcycle as KA -05 -EU -3806. This complaint came to be lodged while he was in the hospital on 04.09.2008 i.e., two days after the accident. Ex.P3 is the sketch of the seen of occurrence, whereas Ex.P4 is the copy of the charge -sheet filed against the rider of the motorcycle. The documents produced would go to show that the complaint was registered against the rider of the motorcycle and after investigation, a charge -sheet was also laid against him. In support of these documents, the appellant is examined as P.W.1 and he also states the manner of the accident in his evidence. There appears to be some discrepancy so far as the person who actually informed the registration number of the offending vehicle. But, any how, if the objection statement filed by the 2nd respondent is seen, in para 7, it is stated: