LAWS(KAR)-2016-1-390

BASAPPA RUDRAPPA DODWAD Vs. KRISHNAPPA SHIVANAND

Decided On January 22, 2016
Basappa Rudrappa Dodwad Appellant
V/S
Krishnappa Shivanand Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimant's appeal for enhancement against the judgment and award dated 27.11.2013 passed in MVC No.1981/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Bailhongal, granting a total compensation of Rs.2,40,470/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

(2.) It is the case of the appellant/claimant that on 29.5.2012, when he was proceeding by carrying a cylinder on his shoulder towards his home, near Avaradi Ganvanthana, Avaradi village, Bailhongal taluka, at that time, the rider of a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-24/K-2512 came in a rash and negligent manner endangering the human life and dashed against the petitioner, thereby causing grievous injuries to the claimant. Accordingly, the jurisdictional police registered a criminal case in Crime No.156/2012 against the rider of the offending motorcycle. The claimant was admitted to the hospital and he was inpatient in the hospital for 20 days and spent Rs.2,00,000/- for treatment. As on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged about 40 years, doing agricultural work and earning Rs.12,000/- per month. In view of the injuries suffered in the accident, in spite of best treatment, the claimant has suffered the permanent disability. Therefore, he sought for total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

(3.) In response to the notice, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company appeared before the Tribunal and filed objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, mode of accident, age, occupation, income of the claimant and nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. It was contended that, as on the date of the accident, the rider of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and there is no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle in causing the accident. It was further contended that the claimant, by colluding with the police has filed false complaint and hence the petition against the Insurance Company is not maintainable.