ISHAWARAPPA KOPPAL Vs. SHAMID SAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant and the owner-insured being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.07.2015 passed in MVC No.150/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Gangavathi have filed these appeals.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that on 17.07.2012 at about 6.00 p.m. the petitioner and his relatives were proceeding for funeral ceremony of their relative on Karatagi- Gangavathi main road at Marlanahalli village, near Hulkihal Cross, the respondent No.1 drove the TATA ACE bearing Registration No.KA-37/A-2144 in high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner and caused accident. Due to the accident the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident he was shifted to Karatagi Government Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the petitioner was shifted to Chinivalar Hospital , Gangavathi for further treatment. He has spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Prior to the accident he was hale and healthy and was student, and was working as tailor and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Due to the impact of the accident, the petitioner has become permanently disabled. Therefore, he filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

(3.) In pursuance to the notice, the respondents No.1 to 3 appeared before the tribunal . Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement and denied the averments made in the petition and also denied that the accident occurred due to negligence of respondent No.1, but it is due to negligent driving of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 also denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner. Respondent No.1 was holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident and the vehicle is duely insured with respondent No.3. Therefore, respondent No.3 is liable to indemnify the respondent Nos1 and 2. Respondent No.3 filed written statement and denied the petition averments. He has also denied the manner in which the accident occurred. He has admitted the insurance policy subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence and therefore, respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. He has also denied the age, occupation and income of the petitioner.