LAWS(KAR)-2013-11-224

IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER BY SRI B. GUNASHEKAR Vs. OMPRAKASH AND SRINIVAS K.

Decided On November 27, 2013
IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
Omprakash And Srinivas K. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for both parties, the same is taken up for final disposal. The above appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 17.6.2009 passed in MVC No. 398/2007 on the file of 14th Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Bangalore City (SCCH. 10). It is the case of the appellant/claimant that on 17.12.2006 at about 6.30 p.m. on 7th Cross in front of Venkateshwara Dry Cleaners, HSR Layout, Bangalore, while he was riding motorbike bearing registration No. KA-17/J-7093, another motorbike bearing registration No. KA 51/J-7946 which was driven by its rider in a rash manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle and caused the accident; in the said accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries as detailed in the wound certificate and soon after the accident, he was shifted to a hospital, wherein he took treatment; he spent money for his treatment and prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, working as a Partner of M/s. Jhawar Steel Corporation, Mothinagar, Bangalore, and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month; due to the injuries sustained, he is unable to do the work regularly and in the circumstances, he filed the claim petition seeking compensation from the respondents.

(2.) THE 2nd respondent-Insurance Company while denying the allegations of the claimant on all material aspects, specifically pleaded that the liability of the insurance company, if any, is subject to terms and conditions of the policy.

(3.) ON appreciation of the evidence placed on record, the Tribunal deemed it fit to allow the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs. 46,613/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of petition till realization. It has further directed that respondent No. 2 -Insurer to indemnify the owner of the vehicle.