LAWS(KAR)-2016-8-95

RACHAPPA @ RAJEPPA @ RAJKUMAR Vs. AMARLING DEVELOPERS

Decided On August 03, 2016
RACHAPPA @ RAJEPPA @ RAJKUMAR Appellant
V/S
AMARLING DEVELOPERS; MANAGER, IFFCO TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 29th July 2013 made in MVC No.74/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Bidar, (for short 'MACT') granting compensation of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant/appellant that on 25.09.2010 at about 13.45 hours, when he was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing registration No.AP-11/J-1568 from Mannekheli to Bhangur village, when he came near the limits of Bhangur village on N.H.9, a Scorpio vehicle bearing registration No.AP-29/ L-3888 being driven in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed, dashed against the claimant, as a result of which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Mannekheli, and later was admitted to Prayavi Hospital, Bidar. Due to the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries to his right hand, abrasion on right elbow, fracture of base of left metacarpel bone and abrasion over both knee joint. His left thumb was operated and rod was inserted. The claimant spent more than Rs. 60,000/- for the treatment. Therefore, he filed claim petition claiming a sum of Rs. 8,40,000/- with interest.

(3.) After receipt of the notice from the MACT, the respondents filed written statements. The first respondent denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claim petition is not maintainable and same is liable to be dismissed. It was contended that the Insurance Company has to indemnify the first respondent by paying the compensation. The 2nd respondent denied the entire averments made in the claim petition and contended that the offending vehicle to the driver who was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and therefore, 2nd respondent is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.