AKMAL BASHA T Vs. PERVEEZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant -claimant against the judgment and award dated 24.8.2012 passed by the First Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM and MACT -VI at Shivamogga in MVC No. 506/2011. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence and the other materials produced before it, has dismissed the petition.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.38,50,000/ - with interest from the respondents. It is pleaded that on 13.2.2011 at about 1.30 p.m., when he was coming from Tarikere to Shimogga on his Pulsar motor bike bearing No.KA -20/Q -285, a lorry bearing No.KA -14/A -3147 came from behind at high speed and dashed the motor bike of the appellant at MG Circle Birur. As a result, the appellant fell down on the road along with the bike and the said lorry ran over his left leg. He was immediately shifted to the Government hospital, Birur and as advised by the Doctor, he was taken to KMC, Manipal and then to A.J. Hospital, Mangalore, wherein he was treated as an inpatient and his left leg was amputed. He has incurred huge amount towards treatment and advised to get artificial limb which costs Rs.2,00,000/ -. It is the case of the appellant that he was doing hardware business and earned more than Rs.35,000/ - per month. He was an income tax assessee and his total turnover was more than 40,00,000/ - per annum. He was maintaining entire family out of income. Due to the accident, he has lost the earning capacity and the economic condition of the family is completely paralyzed. It is further case of the appellant that he is still a bachelor and amputation of leg is certainly affected his personal life as no one is ready to give their daughter in marriage to him. The accident took place solely due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is the driver and respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurance company of the lorry bearing No.KA -14/A - 3147. They are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

(3.) RESPONDENT Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner of the offending vehicle, though served with the notices of the petition remained absent and they were placed exparte by the Tribunal. The 3rd respondent -insurance company filed the written statement disputing the accident involving the lorry bearing No.KA -14/A -3147. It was contended that the averments of the petition were frivolous and not maintainable. The appellant as well the 1st respondent had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the appellant has contributed towards occurrence of the accident. It was contended that the liability of the insurance company was subject to conditions and limitations of the policy covering the risk of the lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent. After considering the evidence of the case, the both oral and documentary, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Tribunal, the appellant has presented the appeal before this Court.