ATAULLA BAJI SAB Vs. KAREEMULLA SHARIFF & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation and also fastening liability on the owner of the offending vehicle has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 30-12-2010 made in MVC No. 376/2008 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Chitradurga (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court" for short).

(2.) The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 22-06-2007 at about 7.30 a.m., while he was proceeding in a car bearing Registration No. KA-16/M-1743 from Chitradurga to Bangalore as a passenger, when the car reached Kallambella on NH-4, driver of the car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the on-going lorry bearing Registration No. KA-02/C-8971. Due to the said impact, the claimant who was a passenger in the said car sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to District Hospital at Tumkur, thereafter he was shifted to City Central Hospital at Davanagere, wherein he had taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 15 days. Thereafter, he had taken follow-up treatment for a period of 72 days. He has spent more than Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenditure. During the treatment period, he had to apply leave for his job. He was working as an Assistant in Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Department. In view of the permanent disability he has suffered, he cannot do the work as efficiently as he was doing prior to the accident. Hence sought for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

(3.) Though the owner of the vehicle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The second respondent-insurance company filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that the first respondent had violated the conditions of the permit. He should not have allowed the claimant to travel in his car as a passenger in a private car and that the car is being used for hire and reward. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.