VILAS Vs. HASIMAPEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the award given under Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% vide award dated 28-8-1992 delivered by Sri S. S. Bhagoji, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal No. II, Bijapur, in M. V. C. case No. 250/1990.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nut-shell are that, the claimant/appellant, who was aged about 12 years and who was a student of VIII class, on 4-3-1990 sustained injuries on account of the accident that had taken place on that day and date at 13-15 hours near P. W. D. Office, Lokapur. The accident was alleged to have been caused as well as has been held to have taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent-the driver of the lorry bearing No. MYL 5335. According to the claimant's case, the lorry going in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the petitioner and passed over the right foot of the petitioner and the right foot of the claimant was completely crushed and bones were cut into pieces. According to the claimant, the claimant was taken to the hospital in PHC Lokapur and then to General Hospital, Bagalkot, and thereafter to KLE Hospital, Belgaum for treatment/intensive treatment. According to the claimant's case, the claimant-injured was a sportive and active boy before the accident occurred. According to the claimant's case, on account of the accident the boy-Vilas-injured has been completely disabled to walk and run and cannot walk without any shelter and has been rendered handicapped and unfit to take part in any sports. He has lost his bright future in education and games and also in respect of key posts. His family also suffered due to the inability and disability of the petitioner-the claimant. Respondent No. 2 has been the owner of the vehicle, while respondent No. 3 is the insurer of the vehicle and the claimant made a claim for compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,60,000/- as compensation jointly and severally against all the respondents.

(3.) AFTER service of notice, though respondents No. 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the vehicle, did put in appearance through the counsel, but they did not file any written statement. Only respondent No. 3 i. e. , the Insurance Company filed the written statement denying the claim of the claimant.