Liability for compensation arises when the claimant proves negligence; inconsistencies in documentation do not negate established injuries and entitlement.

JUDGMENT :

G Basavaraja, J.

The appellant/claim petitioner has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 25.3.2015 passed in MVC No.738/2014 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Additional MACT, Hassan (for short `Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their ranking before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts leading to this appeal is that on 5.1.2014 at about 8.15 p.m. the petitioner, after finishing his work, was proceeding on B M Road by walk towards Eechalahalli on the left side of the road and when he came near Kandali Grama Panchayathi Office, a motorbike bearing Registration No.KA- 13/V-9661 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner and with high speed, dashed against the petitioner from his backside, as a result, the petitioner fell and has sustained injuries on left shoulder, right leg and right arm. Immediately, the injured was brought to Hassan Government Hospital through an ambulance, wherein the duty doctor has taken x- ray and found left shoulder, right ankle and left femurs bones fractured and has conducted surgery for the above said injuries and rod was inserted. He has spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses; and due to the said injuries, he could not do work for a period of six months, hence, he sustained loss of income to an extent of Rs.40,000/-.

4. It is also submitted that the petitioner was hale and healthy prior to the accident, was doing agricultural coolie work and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. After the accident, due to the accidental injuries and disability, he is not able to do any work as before, he is suffering from pain, mental agony, loss of income and permanent disability. The accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of motorbike, which was insured with respondent No.2. On all these grounds sought for allowing the claim petition.

5. The respondent No.1 appeared before the Tribunal and filed statement of objections contending that petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is further admitted that the respondent No.1 has insured the vehicle with respondent No.2 and policy was in force as on the date of accident. The respondent No.2 is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. The respondent No.1 has denied all other averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. The respondent No.2 filed written statement contending that the petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The respondent No.1 has handed over the possession of the motorbike to the person who had no licence to drive the vehicle. The respondent No.2 admits the policy issued to the offending vehicle is subject to terms and conditions of the policy. Further the respondent No.2 has denied all other averments made in the claim petition and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

7. On the basis of the pleadings, the Tribunal framed three issues. To prove the case of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined as PWs.1 and 2 and eight documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P8, and on closure of the petitioner's evidence, Sri Ganapathi S, Senior Assistant was examined as RW1 and four documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4.

8. The Tribunal, after hearing the arguments on both sides, has dismissed the claim petition with cost. Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is illegal, perverse and unsustainable in law and the same r