SUGURAPPA S/O BASSAPPA Vs. NARENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unfortunate claimant who sustained the amputation of left leg above knee is before this Court for enhancement of compensation against the impugned judgment and award dated 22.03.2016 made in MVC No.286/2015 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Raichur awarding compensation of Rs.6,20,721/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant that on 31.01.2015 at about 7.00 p.m. the claimant after completion of his work was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.KA-36/Y-8068 by left side of the road in a slow manner and while going near Vijayalaxmi Petrol Bunk, at that time one lorry bearing No.HR-69/A- 6522 came from opposite direction from Raichur side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the motorcycle of the claimant, as a result, the claimant fell down from the motorcycle and the said lorry passed over the right leg of the claimant and his leg was completely fractured with heavy blunt injury. Immediately, he was shifted to RIMS Hospital, Raichur for treatment and the Doctors have done diagnoses and treated for a period of five months, wherein he was undergone operation and his leg was amputated. The claimant has spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He further contended that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy and working in MPCL Company and drawing salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. Therefore, sought for compensation.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed the written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition. Respondent No.1 contended that the accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.1 but, as a matter of fact, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding by the claimant. He was not holding driving licence as on the date of the accident. The lorry was insured with the second respondent and the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent filed separate written statement and denied the age, occupation, income and expenses incurred by the claimant. It is also contended that the driver of the lorry was also not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the same. The driver of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the claim petition.