LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-242

SHIVANAGOUDA Vs. KARTHIK MRUTHYUNJAYA AND ANOTHER

Decided On January 24, 2017
SHIVANAGOUDA Appellant
V/S
Karthik Mruthyunjaya And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the claimant being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 4-9-2012 made in MVC No. 55/2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Soraba (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The appellant filed a claim petition contending that on 17-4-2009 while he was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing Registration No. KA-15/K-7553 along with the pillion rider from Anavatti to Mallapur at about 1.00 p.m., a Tractor and Trailer bearing Registration No. KA-15/T5142-5143 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the rider as well as the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital at Anavatti, as per the advice of the doctor at Anavatti Government Hospital, he was shifted to KMC Hospital at Manipal wherein he had taken treatment as inpatient for a period of 4 days. In the accident, the claimant has sustained fracture of right humerus and fracture of shaft of humerus. In view of the injuries he has sustained he has become permanently disabled to do any work. He has spent huge money towards his treatment. Due to the negligent driving of the Tractor and Trailer by its driver, which was insured with the third respondent-insurance company, the accident occurred. Hence, he filed a claim petition seeking compensation.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and filed the written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition. Further they contended that the rider of the motorcycle suddenly applied the brake in the middle of road, due to which, the accident had occurred. Hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against respondent Nos. 1 and 2.