SURESH Vs. LOKESHAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is filed by the injured from the Judgment and Award dt. 1-4-1991 in M. V. C. No. 363 of 87. The Tribunal has in total awarded a sum of Rs. 23,000/- as compensation to the Claimant-Appellant, the details of which are as under :-a) Rs. 20,000/- towards pecuniary loss, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities, enjoyment of life and temporary disability. b) Rs. 2000/- for medical and other expenses. c) Rs. 1000/- for engaging motor car to Puttur. Thus in total compensation of Rs. 23,000/- has been awarded as mentioned above by the Tribunal.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Claimant on 12-5-1987 was going on cycle and he was on the left side of the road. According to the claimant's case a Tractor bearing No. MYH 7345 and trailor bearing No. 7346 being driven by its driver that is Respondent No. 1 was coming in a rash and negligent manner from cross road from the left side and dashed against the petitioner who was cycling on the left side of the road. The claimant in that accident sustained injuries including the fracture on leg and injuries on other parts of the body. According to the claimant's case his bicycle was damaged and he was immediately taken to Mallegowda General Hospital, Chickmagalur. The Claimant-appellant was treated as an inpatient for twenty days and thereafter was discharged with the advice to get the treatment with a bone specialist at Rajapalay, Andhra Pradesh. The claimant's case is that he suffered permanent disability, loss of Education for one year. He further alleged that he has incurred expenditure to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- towards treatment and also claimed damages for the cycle. It was stated in the Claim Petition that Respondent No. 1 was the Driver of the Tractor and Trailor and Respondent No. 2 was the owner of the Tractor and Trailor and Respondent No. 3 was the Insurance Company with which the Trailor and Tractor both were insured. The Claimant claimed the compensation in the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

(3.) THAT on notice being issued to the Owner and the Driver absented themselves and the case proceeded against them ex parte. Insurance Company contested the claim petition but it admitted that the Tractor and Trailor were insured with the Respondent No. 3 and that liability was subject to the terms and conditions of the Policy. The company did not admit that the claimant was injured in the accident and denied the expenses alleged to have been borne by the claimant. The Company further alleged that the compensation claimed is exhorbitant. It has also stated that Respondent No. 2 has not produced the driving licence for verification also there is contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy, hence claim against insurance company is liable to be dismissed.