KALLAPPA Vs. BHIMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/claimant is before this Court against the judgment and award dated 29.07.2017 made in MVC No.1898/2014 passed by the Court of IV Additional District Judge and MACT-XIII, Vijayapur awarding total compensation of Rs.3,98,000.00 with 9% interest from the date of filing of petition till its realization.

(2.) It is the case of the claimants that on 30.06.2014, the claimant and another were travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-25/X-6735 from Babalad to Indi. At that time, the driver of Tata Super Ace bearing No.KA-28/B-7340 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle driven by the claimant and another which has resulted the claimant sustained injuries and pillion rider died on the spot. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to the Government Hospital Indi, then to BLDE hospital Vijayapur. It is further contended that due to the said accident, the claimant sustained fracture of lower shaft and bilateral condylar of femur and comminuted fracture of patella. He was admitted to the hospital as inpatient from 30.06.2014 to 08.09.2014 and he has undergone surgery and spent Rs.1,50,000.00 for treatment. It is further contended that as on the date of the accident he was hale and healthy, aged about 27 years and was working as an operator of JCB and was getting monthly salary of Rs.13,000.00 (learned counsel submits that it is wrongly typed as Rs,13,000.00 instead of Rs.30,000.00). The claimant was earning Rs.30,000.00 per month. He further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Super Ace bearing registration No.KA-28/B-7340. The first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. The second respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle and insurance policy was valid as on the date of the accident and respondents are liable to pay compensation.

(3.) The first respondent filed the statement of objections and denied the averments made in the claim petition and stated that he is the owner of the offending vehicle and it was duly insured with the second respondent and not liable to pay compensation.