G RAMAKRISHNA SURYANARAYANA Vs. G NARAYANA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("the Act") alleging that he is the cleaner in the lorry of the first respondent which was taken to Hampapuram to pick up a load of Cheeni fruits for being transported to Bangalore and after the lorry was loaded with Cheeni fruits, the driver asked him to grease the vehicle, and he was greasing the vehicle the driver suddenly started the lorry and so the rear wheels of the lorry ran over his right leg resulting in a fracture and so he was admitted in the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Anantapur, for treatment and as the first respondent requested him not to disclose the truth, with a promise that he would settle the claim, he did not state correct facts to the doctor but as first respondent did not fulfil his promise and did not pay any compensation he is filing the petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- from the first respondent and the insurer-second respondent.

(2.) First respondent chose to remain exparte before the Tribunal.

(3.) Second respondent filed a counter inter alia contending that the averment that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry of the first respondent at Hampapuram and that he sustained injuries in that accident is not true. In fact, appellant did not sustain injuries as alleged in a motor accident.