JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.11.2013 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gokak, in MVC No.2706/2011. This appeal is premised on the ground of arbitrary dismissal of the claim petition without application of mind by the Tribunal and for awarding suitable compensation,

2. Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, matter is taken up for final disposal.

3. Parties to the appeal shall be referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

4. Brief facts of the case:

On 26.01.2010, when the claimant along with his relatives had been to Hubli on private work in a Jeep bearing Registration No. KA-23 / M-3312 and when they were returning to Gokak at about 11.30pm, near Kurubagatti Cross on Gokak Yaragatti Road the driver of the jeep drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.

At the same time, a tractor coming from the opposite side lost control over the same and dashed against the jeep resulting in accident, due to which claimant sustained grievous injuries.

5. Immediately, he was taken to the hospital for treatment, he suffered fracture of radius and ulna middle 1/3 (R) forearm, cut lacerated wound ®side of chest, cut lacerated wound on frontal scalp bony deep, abrasions on (R) forearm and other multiple injuries all over the body. He spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and he requires another Rs.50,000/- for future medical expenses.

6. The claimant filed a claim petition against the respondents seeking compensation. Originally the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of IMV Act, subsequently during the pendency of the petition, it was converted into one under Section 166 of IMV Act by way of amendment.

7. On service of notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their respective objections. Respondent No.1 – owner of the jeep, represented by his L.Rs., filed written statement on 18.04.2012 admitting the petition averments and the accident. Later, they filed additional objections on 06.02.2013 after amendment of the petition, wherein they denied the averments, inter alia, contending that if the Court comes to a conclusion that they are liable to pay compensation, the liability may be fastened upon the respondent No.2 - Insurer as the policy was in force as on date of occurrence of accident.

8. Respondent No.2- Insurer filed written statement, inter-alia, denying petition averments and contended that there is delay in filing the complaint. The driver of the tractor not having any valid license and tractor was not insured. Further it pleaded that police have file “C’ report before JMFC stating that the accused could not be traced. It also contended that owner and insurer of the tractor are also necessary parties and without whom the present petition is not maintainable. After amendment of the claim petition respondent No.2 - Insurer filed additional written statement contending that claimant has failed to bring his case within the purview of Section 166 of IMV Act, in view of the fact that connected matters are filed under Section 163-A of IMV Act in MVC No.332 & 333 of 2011 before the Addl. Senior Civil Judge and Addl. MACT, Gokak and they are disposed of as not maintainable. It also pleaded that the amount of compensation sought was exorbitant and pleaded for dismissal of the claim petition.

9. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed relevant issues for consideration. In order to substantiate and establish the case, claimant examined herself as PW1 and the doctor as PW2 and another witness as PW3 and got marked Exs.P1 to P22. On the other hand, no evidence came to be adduced either by respondent No.1– Owner of the jeep or respondent No.2 - Insurance company neither marked any documents.

10. The Tribunal considering the evidence both oral and documentary, dismissed the claim petition filed under Section 166 IMV Act.

11. Being aggrieved by the dism