YALLAPPA Vs. SHANULLA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the claimant in M.V.C. No. 1303/2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal' for short). Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 22.08.2011 passed in the aforesaid claim petition, the appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The appellant/claimant, filed the claim petition contending that on 25.05.2010, he, along with other passengers, was travelling in Tata 407 Maxicab bearing No. KA -23/3530 and at about 10.30 a.m., when the said vehicle was near Muktimath Butramatti on National Highway -4, P.B. Road, due to rash and negligent driving of the said vehicle by its driver and because of applying sudden brake, the maxicab turned turtle resulting in the accident. Due to the said accident, he and other passengers travelling in the said vehicle sustained grievous injuries. The claimant sustained injuries to head, face, back and compressed fracture of left spine and multiple injuries all over the body. Initially, he took treatment at a Primary Health Centre and thereafter, at District Hospital, Belgaum, wherein he was treated as an inpatient from 25.05.2010 to 30.05.2010. The claimant claimed that he was an agriculturist, aged 50 years and used to earn Rs. 1,00,000/ - per annum. Due to the accident he cannot carry on the work of an agriculturist and hence, sought for compensation.

(3.) Though the owner of the maxicab admitted occurrence of the accident, he contended that since the vehicle was covered by insurance policy, the insurer is liable to compensate the claimant and therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against him. The insurer of maxicab filed its statement of objections denying the entire averments made in the claim petition. It was contended that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and therefore, insurer was not liable to pay compensation. Hence, the insurer sought for dismissal of the claim petition.