Y N NANJEGOWDA Vs. VINAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the claimant, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 13th March 2013 made in M.V.C. No.4163/2011 passed by XI Addl. Judge and MACT, (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The appellant herein filed a claim petition contending that on 2.06.2011 at about 1.45 p.m., while he was standing in front of Hemavathi office, B.M. Road, Channarayapatna, at that time, one motor cycle bearing Registration No.KA-19-EC-8646 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came from Hassan to Bangalore and dashed against the claimant. Due to the impact, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was initially shifted to Government Hospital, Channarayapatna. After first aid treatment he was shifted to Sri Chamarajendra Hospital at Hassan. Thereafter, he was shifted to Mangala Hospital, Hassan. He has taken treatment therein as inpatient. During the course of treatment, he has undergone surgery and implants were inserted. He has further undergone surgery for removal of some implants of his leg and other implants were left in. In view of the injuries sustained he cannot work as coolie as he was working prior to the accident. Hence sought for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

(3.) In pursuance to the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the owner of the offending vehicle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. Second respondent - insurance company contested the claim petition and filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and also disputed the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the claimant - appellant. Further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid and effective license as on the date of accident. Further, there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motor cycle bearing No.KA-19-EC-8646 who was riding the insured vehicle in strict adherence to traffic regulations but the claimant who was a pedestrian suddenly rushed across the road without looking on going vehicles, he tried to cross the road and met with an accident on account of his own negligence. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.