CHANDRAKANT Vs. MALLAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant filed the above appeal for enhancement of compensation against the judgment and award dated 13.10.2011 made in MVC 1478/2010 on the file of the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.II, Bijapur, (for short 'MACT'), awarding compensation of Rs. 1,49,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

(2.) The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs contending that on 31.08.2009 at about 11 a.m., when he was coming on his bicycle from Arakeri to Bijapur by the side of the road in a slow manner, when he came near Kidney Foundation Hospital on Solapur- Bijapur Road, the motor cycle bearing registration No. KA-28/S-4572 came in a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him and caused the accident, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. Immediately, he was sifted to District Hospital, Bijapur, where he was inpatient for 3 days and thereafter, took treatment in a private hospital by spending huge amount. He further contended that due to the accidental injuries, he became permanently disabled which affected his earning capacity. Therefore, the 1st respondent being the owner of the motor cycle and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the said vehicle are liable to pay compensation. Accordingly, the claimant filed the claim petition.

(3.) On service of notice, the 1st respondent owner remained absent and was placed ex-parte before the MACT. The 2nd respondent/insurance company filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claim petition is frivolous and vexatious and denied that the vehicle in question was insured with it as on the date of the accident. It also denied the injuries sustained by the claimant and also the amount spent towards medical expenses, age, occupation and income of the claimant. It was contended that the claim of the claimant was totally baseless and highly exorbitant and that the rider of the motor cycle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date and time of the accident and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.