G. PRAVEEN Vs. THANVEER SYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/appellant being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and award dtd. 22/10/2019 passed in MVC.No.6944/2017 by the learned XIII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, MACT, Bengaluru, has preferred this appeal seeking to set aside the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner as well as sought for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are as under:

(3.) That the petitioner/appellant filed the claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 for the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that took place on 21/10/2017 at about 4:45 pm., when the petitioner/appellant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-02-AP-8470 slowly, cautiously, on the correct side of the road. It is stated that, when he reached near Sini Food Factory, Bengaluru - Chittoor road, Chittoor district, Andra Pradesh, at that time, one Eicher goods vehicle bearing registration No.AP- 03-TA-7682 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations, came to the wrong side of the road and dashed the petitioner's motorcycle. Due to this, the petitioner fell down and sustained several multiple injuries on his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government hospital, Bangarupalyam and took first aid treatment. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sai Sudha hospital for further treatment. It is further stated that he took treatment as impatient and also as outpatient and has spent Rs.10,00,000.00 towards medical expenses, conveyance, nourishment and other incidental charges. It is also stated that, prior to the accident, he was working in Flipkart as salesman and earning Rs.15,000.00 per month. Due to the accident, petitioner's life has become miserable and depressed for financial difficulties. It is alleged that, the said accident has taken place exclusively because of the rash and negligent driving of the goods vehicle by its driver stated (supra), both respondents are liable to pay compensation. He submits that, the petition be allowed.