Court affirmed that insurance companies failed to establish claimant's contributory negligence, leading to enhanced compensation for his severe injuries in a vehicle accident.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

MFA No.103553/2024 is filed by New India Assurance Co. Ltd.-respondent No.4; MFA No.102272/2024 is filed by the claimant and MFA No.102495/2024 is filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd.-respondent No.2; both insurance companies have filed the appeals challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and unsatisfied with the compensation, the claimant has filed the appeal claiming enhancement of compensation awarded in judgment and award in MVC No.2149/2012 dated 12.02.2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and M.A.C.T., Hukkeri (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. The parties would be referred with their rankings as they were before the Tribunal for convenience and clarity.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, on 23.01.2012 at about 21.30 hours, when the claimant was proceeding from Gokak towards Hukkeri in motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-49/K-3778 near Ghataprabha-Hukkeri Road, near railway bridge, the tractor and trailer bearing registration No.KL-33/T-4163 and KA-49/T-5902/5903, respectively came in high speed and dashed against the motorcycle and thus, the accident occurred. Due to the impact of accident, the claimant has sustained multiple grievous injuries and he was shifted to J.G. Hospital, Ghataprabha, wherein he has taken treatment; on next day, he was shifted to Military Hospital, Belagavi; then shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi, wherein he was admitted as in-patient from 24.01.2012 to 09.02.2012 and due to the accident, there was surgery to his left leg on 25.01.2012 and his left leg was amputated up to mid thigh. Again he was admitted to Military Hospital, Pune and was taking treatment even at the time of filing the petition.

4. On receipt of notice, respondent Nos.1 & 3 , the owners of respective tractor and trailer appeared and filed their objection statements by denying the nature of accident, the age, income and occupation of the claimant and all the defenses available to the owners.

5. On receipt of notice, respondent No.2-insurer of tractor bearing Registration No.KA-33/T-4163 appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement denying all the averments in the petition. It further contended that the driver of tractor and trailer was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the date of accident and hence, it is not liable to pay compensation. It denied the other averments made in the petition and contended that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of another tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-49/T-5902/5903. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

6. On receipt of notice, respondent No.4-insurer insurer of tractor bearing Registration No.KA-33/T- 5902/5903 appeared through its counsel and filed its objection statement wherein it also denied all the averments made in the petition and contended that driver of the tractor-trailer was not holding valid driving licence. It further contented that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing number No.KA-33/T-4163 and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

7. The claimant was examined as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.73 and closed his side before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, no evidence was let in except marking insurance policy at Ex.R.1.

8. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of both tractors-trailer and both vehicles were having valid and effect