RAJKUMAR@BASAWARAJ Vs. BASAWARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant who is a practicing advocate filed the present appeal for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment award dated 21.12.2010 made in MVC No.229/2008 on the file of the Fast Track Court-II Bidar (MACT Bidar), awarding the compensation of Rs.2,14,554/- with interest @ 6% from the date of petition till deposit of the amount and also held that the respondent No.2 the insurer was directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two months.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant that on 27.01.2007 at about 4.45 p.m. that claimant was proceeding on his bike Hero Honda splendor bearing registration No.KA- 38/J-570 towards the Court near Madival Circle, by that time the driver of TATA Safari vehicle bearing registration No.KA-34/MC-1661 came from Dr.Siddareddy Hospital driving in a high speed and negligent manner endangering the human life and dashed against the claimant and ran away from the spot. As a result of said accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries on his right knee and also sustained fracture of tibia and fibula and also grievous injuries to the other parts of the body and he was shifted to Government Hospital Bidar, due to grievous and fracture injury the claimant was referred to Udaya Orthopedic clinic at Hyderabad and admitted to the said hospital and he was in the Hospital from 28.01.2007 to 05.02.2007. The claimant further contended that he has undergone the operation of his right knee and bone grafting was done after the operation the Doctor advised the claimant to take full rest of five months and even after taking best treatment the claimant was not fully recovered and still there is pain in the right knee and the claimant cannot fold his leg full and sit on the ground with cross leg and the claimant is unable to walk in fast and has become permanent disable man.

(3.) After receipt of summons from the Tribunal, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and second respondent filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the second respondent has no personal knowledge about the injuries sustained by the claimant and denied that the claimant sustained fracture injuries and not spent any amount for his treatment and also denied the age, occupation, and income of the claimant and nature of injuries sustained by the him. Further it is contended that the police collusion with the claimant filed false case against the driver of the TATA safari and also denied that the driver of TATA Safari ran away from the accident spot and further contended that the respondent is not liable to pay the compensation and the driver of the TATA Safari was not having valid effective driving license to driver the vehicle. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to pay the compensation.