MANJUNATHA REDDY A Vs. MOHAMMED GHOUSE N BASCO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15 -10 -2011 passed in M. V. C. No.9314/2008 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru ("the Tribunal" for brevity). By the impugned order, the claim petition filed by the petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act ("the Act" for brevity) is dismissed.

(2.) THE fact is, the appellant on 26 -10 -2008 at 8.30 p.m. while riding his motorcycle bearing registration No. KA -51/L -89 slowly and cautiously near Sub -Collector's Bungalow, Hosur. Denkanikota Road, the driver of offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No. KA -07/M -753 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle from opposite side, due to the impact, the appellant was thrown out of the vehicle and suffered grievous injuries; he was immediately taken to Hosur Government Hospital and after first aid treatment was shifted to Sparsh Hospital, Chandapura; he was treated a inpatient for one month; surgery was conducted; his right lower limb below knee was amputated. He spent more than Rs. 5 lakhs towards treatment, conveyance and other miscellaneous expenses. He was advised to undergo correction surgeries and also removal of the implant surgery, which would cost Rs. 2,50,000/ - He is unable to walk without support, completely bedridden; he was working as an Engineer in Kirloskar Toyota Textile Machinery Private Limited and was earning Rs. 35,000/ - per month. Because of his physical disability, he was unable to attend to his work and lost his earning. He has lost his marriage prospects. He filed the petition under Section 166 of the Act against the driver of the offending vehicle belonging to the first respondent; third respondent is the present owner of the vehicle and second respondent is the insurer.

(3.) THE first and second respondent contested the petition; third respondent remained ex parte. After completion of the pleadings, enquiry was held. The appellant examined five witnesses PWs -1 to 5 including himself and marked documents Exs.P1 to P29. RW -1 was examined for the respondents and documents Exs. R1 to R4 were marked.