A ANANDAN Vs. ABDUL AZEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN a bodily injury case arising out of a motor vehicle accident, the injured being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 8. 11. 2000 passed in m. V. C. No. 2834 of 1996 on the file of the m. A. C. T. and Addl. Judge, Court of Small causes, Bangalore City [sch-5], (for short, 'the M. A. C. T. '), has preferred this appeal under section 173 (1) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'the Act'.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are as follows: in an accident involving a motor cycle bearing registration No. MEM 3769 owned by the respondent No. 1 and insured by the respondent No. 2, insurance company, the appellant sustained certain injuries. He was an inpatient in Victoria Hospital between 19. 8. 1996 and 23. 8. 1996 (both days inclusive) and even after discharge from the hospital, he had to undergo medical treatment for a period of three months. In the accident the claimant sustained trimal-leolar fracture of the right ankle joint and when he was an inpatient in Victoria Hospital, he underwent surgery and POP cast was applied. The appellant on the date of the accident was aged 47 years and he was a mechanic and according to him, he was earning monthly income of Rs. 3,000. The claimant-appellant alleging that the accident took place solely on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the motor cycle filed claim petition before the m. A. C. T. under section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000 under various heads. Although the owner of the motor cycle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. However, the respondent No. 2 insurance company on service of notice contested the claim petition by filing a written statement, in which all material averments made in the claim petition are denied. On the other hand, it was contended by the insurance company that the claimant himself was responsible for the accident. It is alleged that appellant suddenly entered the road to cross without looking for vehicle or traffic on the road and in the process he sustained injury.

(3.) IN premise of the above pleading of the appellant-claimant and the insurance company, the M. A. C. T. has framed the following issues: