LAWS(KAR)-2014-11-42

H.S. MANJUNATH Vs. DADAPEER

Decided On November 06, 2014
H.S. Manjunath Appellant
V/S
Dadapeer Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a claimant's appeal questioning the correctness and legality of judgment and award passed by MACT, Fast Track Court -I, Davanagere, dated 06.08.2008 in MVC No. 944/2006, whereunder claim petition came to be allowed in part and a total compensation of Rs. 2,23,000/ - with interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs. 1,90,000/ - from the date of petition till date of realization and 40% of total compensation awarded has been ordered to be foregone by claimant on account of his negligence in causing the accident and reserving him liberty to approach the fourth respondent -insurance company or proper forum for redressal of his grievance i.e., to claim compensation under heading "personal accident cover to the insured".

(2.) I have heard the arguments of Sri. Nagarajappa S.H., learned counsel appearing for appellant/claimant, Sri. R. Kothwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and notice to respondent No. 3 has been held sufficient vide order dated 22.07.2013 and Sri. Anoop Seetharama Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Seetharama Rao. B.C., for respondent No. 4. Perused the judgment and award in question as also records secured from the Tribunal.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos. 1 and 3 though entered appearance did not file written statement. Second respondent before the Tribunal who is stated to be the owner of motorcycle, appeared and filed his written statement; it was contended by second respondent that he is not liable to pay any compensation and he is not the owner of motorcycle involved in the accident and criminal case filed against petitioner/claimant himself though had ended in acquittal, does not absolve him of holding responsible for the cause of accident; it was also pleaded that charge sheet has been filed against claimant and driver of motorcycle and it is the claimant and jurisdictional police, who persuaded him to plead guilty and accordingly, he had pleaded guilty though there was no negligence on his part. Other averments made in the claim petition came to be denied.