MARUTI Vs. ANNAPPA BASAPPA KUMBAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant and owner being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 27.03.2015 passed in MVC No.392/2014 by the Fast Track Court and Member Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gokak have filed these appeals.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 18.02.2014 at about 9 a.m., the petitioner as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA23/EB 3828 proceeded from Byakud Village towards Raibag in a moderate speed. When the motorcycle was proceedings near Shreenagar cross, at that time TATA Ace motor vehicle bearing No.KA23/A 2283 came from Raibag side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner. Due to the said impact, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. He was treated by Dr. M.G.Umarani at Ganga Surgical and Fracture Clinic, Gokak. He has spent Rs. 1,00,000.00 towards medical expenses. Prior to the accident, the claimant was aged about 50 years and used to earn Rs. 6,000.00 p.m. by doing agricultural work. Therefore claimed compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

(3.) In pursuance of notice, respondents No.1 to 3 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No1. filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and further contended that the vehicle has been insured with respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 having valid driving licence, respondent No.3 is solely liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.2 adopted the written statement filed by respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the entire averment made in the claim petition. He contended that the accident in question was due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner and therefore the owner and insurer of the motorcycle are necessary parties. The driver of the insured vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle and therefore there is breach of policy condition and as such he is not liable to pay compensation. He has specifically contended that respondent No.2, the driver was having licence of LMV (NT) and the vehicle is light goods vehicle and therefore, he had no driving licence.