HARISHA D. Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR V. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is filed by the claimant/appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dt.19.4.2013 passed by the Tribunal in MVC No. 3861/2011.

(2.) TO sum up the facts it is as follows: -

(3.) IN spite of service of notice to the first respondent i.e. the owner -cum -rider of the motor cycle, he chose to remain absent and was placed ex -parte. Second respondent -insurer had entered appearance and filed its objections in the standard format. The objection is in the nature of total denial of the accident. The objections are self contradictory. In one breath it is asserted that the insured motor cycle was not involved in the alleged accident and thereafter it is alternatively prayed that the motor cycle rider was riding slowly observing traffic rules and the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the appellant and as such the appellant is not entitled for any compensation. On the strength of the averments the court below framed three issues which are as follows: - -