SHASHIDHAR Vs. ANIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the appellant/claimant is preferred questioning the correctness of the judgment and award dated 09.05.2008 passed in M.V.C. No. 194/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Bagalkot, insofar as it relates to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. On 01.02.2006, the appellant/claimant along with his friend one Prabhu as a pillion rider was proceeding on his Hero Honda Splendor motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-29/L-3715 on Badami- Kulageri road. While he was so proceeding slowly and cautiously, a tipper lorry bearing No. KA-22/A-2704 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle and as a result, the claimant fell down and suffered grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to a Government Hospital at Badami and thereafter to Dr. Daddenavar's Hospital at Bagalkot where he was treated as an inpatient. He also underwent surgeries. He spent substantial amount for his treatment. He lost his earnings and suffered disability in spite of the best treatment. He filed a claim petition in M.V.C. No. 194/2006 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against owner and insurer of the tipper lorry claiming compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-.

(2.) The claim petition was opposed by the insurance company. In its statement of objections, the insurance company denied all the material averments made out in the claim petition as to the manner of the accident, the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the nature and period of treatment, expenditure incurred for the treatment, avocation of the claimant, his income, loss of earnings, the disability etc., etc., apart from denying the negligence attributed to the driver of the tipper lorry and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

(3.) The Tribunal upon consideration of the respective contentions taken by the claimant and the insurance company framed issues regarding negligence and quantum of compensation to be awarded. In order to establish the claim, the claimant got himself examined as P.W. 1 apart from examining Dr. Vijaya Kanthi as P.W. 2 and Dr. M.S. Daddenavar as P.W. 3. Claimant also relied upon as many as 15 documents marked as Exs. P.1 to P. 15. On behalf of the insurance company, insurance policy was marked as Ex. R. 1 and a copy of the driving licence as Ex. R.2.