AMARESH MALI PATIL Vs. JALAL SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 21.6.2010 passed by the MACT & FTC -I, Raichur in MVC No. 336/2009 and also the quantum of compensation awarded in the case.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the filing of the claim petition before the tribunal is that on 30.9.2008 at 7.30 p.m. on Sindhanur -Raichur Road, near Balaganur cross, when the claimant was proceeding along with his son Kareem Sab on the bicycle, at that time, respondent No. 1 being driver of the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA -36/Q -5087 came in a high speed and rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed the bicycle on which the claimant was going and due to which, the claimant fell down and sustained injuries. Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to hospital and case was registered against respondent No. 1 therein in Cr. No. 137/2008. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained fracture injury and also the other injuries to head and other parts of the body. Hence, he filed the claim petition for compensation. It was denied by respondent No. 1 contending that he was not responsible for the accident in question. He had stated that he had not at all dashed to the claimant and false case had been registered against him. The respondent had also denied age, occupation and injuries and the manner of the accident as stated by the claimant. The compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. On the basis of the said pleadings, the tribunal framed the three issues and after considering the oral and documentary evidence, ultimately allowed the claim petition in part awarding compensation of Rs. 1,07,000/ - with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that though the accident is stated to have been occurred on 30.9.2008, FIR was registered on 5.10.2008 and hence, there is delay of 5 -6 days in registering the FIR. Even with regard to the factum of accident and sustaining injuries by the claimant in the accident is concerned, there is no satisfactory and acceptable evidence adduced before the tribunal and even then the tribunal has wrongly accepted the same. The percentage of disability taken at 15% is also on the higher side and hence, he submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment and award passed by the tribunal be set aside. It is also his contention that the said vehicle is also not involved in the accident. This aspect was not properly appreciated by the tribunal while allowing the claim petition.