YADAVENDRA Vs. NARAYANA BEERAYYA GONDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant in MVC.No.100/2011 on the file of the Additional M.A.C.T., Honnavar (Itinerary Court at Bhatkal) (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'), is impugning the judgment and award dtd. 12/9/2014 dismissing the claim petition against respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed under Sec. 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). Parties are referred to as per the ranks before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the claimant represented by his mother filed the claim petition under Sec. 163-A of the Act claiming the compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident, against respondent No.1 being the owner and respondent No.2 being the insurer of the motorcycle bearing reg. no. KA-47-H-9318. It is contended that the claimant was working under respondent No.1 as a Mason-cum-Helper and respondent No.1 sent the claimant to Murdeshwara by giving his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA- 47/H-9318 to bring the building materials and accordingly the claimant proceeded as per the instructions of respondent No.1 towards Murdeshawara on N.H.-17. He was riding the motorcycle slowly and steadily, but the lorry bearing Reg.No.MH-16/AD-2318 came from the opposite direction in high speed and in rash and negligent manner. While overtaking another lorry, the aforesaid lorry came to the extreme right side of the road and hit the motorcycle ridden by the claimant as a result of which he sustained injuries to his head and to other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital at Bhatkal and thereafter to Adarsha Hospital, Udupi. He underwent surgery and discharged on 24/3/2011. Still the claimant was not fully conscious. He was advised to take bed rest. The claimant has spent a sum of Rs.1,75,000.00 towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000.00 towards incidental charges. He requires further medical treatment. Therefore he claims compensation of Rs.27,55,000.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-47/H-9318.

(3.) Respondent No.1 has filed objections contending that he is not liable to pay any compensation as the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself. It is also contended that since the vehicle in question was insured with respondent No.2, it is only respondent No.2 who is liable to pay compensation.