This appeal is preferred by the claimant

challenging

the

judgment

and

award

dated

7.4.2015 passed by Prl. Senior Civil Judge and

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranebennur, (for

short ‘the tribunal’) in MVC No.158/2013. This

appeal is against the dismissal of claim petition.

2.

Parties to the appeal shall be referred to

as per their status before the tribunal.

3.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

a)

On 16.10.2012, at about 9.30 p.m. when

the claimant was proceeding on motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-27/X-3424 as a pillion rider

from Ranebennur towards Mukthenahalli village,

Honnali taluk, at that time the 1^st respondent who

was rider of the said vehicle rode the vehicle in a

rash and negligent manner so as to endanger

human life and personal safety of others, dashed

against

a

goods

lorry

bearing

registration

No.KA-04/C-4483,

due

to

which

the

claimant

- 3 -

sustained grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter

he was taken to C.G.Hospital, Davangere, for first

aid

treatment

and

thereafter

shifted

to

S.S.Hospital, Davangere, for better treatment. It is

claimed that he took further treatment for about

two months by spending Rs.1,00,000/-.

b)

It is stated that prior to the occurrence

of the accident the claimant was hale and healthy

and was earning Rs.1,50,000/- per month as an

auto driver. Due to the accident, injuries sustained

by him, he has become permanently disabled and

unable to do his daily activities as he was able to

do prior to the date of occurrence of accident. It is

further stated that the accident occurred due to the

sole negligence and rashness of the 1^st respondent.

In view of the injuries sustained in the accident

and having met huge expenses for treatment, the

claimant

preferred

claim

petition

seeking

compensation for the injuries sustained.

4.

On service of notice, respondents who

are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle

have filed their detailed statement of objections

- 4 -

inter alia contending that the claimant was not the

pillion rider in the motorcycle whereas he was the

rider of the motorcycle. However, respondent No.1

admitted that he is the owner of the offending

vehicle involved in the accident and brother of

claimant and that respondent No.2 is the Insurance

Company in which he had insured his vehicle and

rider of the vehicle had a valid Driving Licence as

on the date of occurrence of accident. He further

pleaded that in case the liability is fastened on

him, respondent No.1 would have to be indemnified

by respondent No.2, in view of subsistence of

policy. It was also pleaded by respondent No.2

that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent manner of the rider of the motorcycle,

who did not possess a valid driving licence.

5.

The respondents also denied the age,

avocation and income of the claimant, apart from

stating that exorbitant amount of compensation is

sought for by the claimant. Respondent No.2-

Insurer also took up the plea that the driver of the

offending

vehicle

did

not

possess

valid

and

- 5 -

effective driving licence as on the date of accident.

However, respondent No.2-Insurer has admitted

the issuance of policy and same being in force

subject

to

terms

and

conditions

of

policy.

Accordingly, they sought for dismissal of the claim

petition.

6.

On the basis of pleadings, the tribunal

has framed relevant issues for consideration.

7.

In order to substantiate the issues and

to establish the case, the claimant got examined

himself as PW.1 and the Doctor as PW.2 and got

marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.82. On the other

hand,

respondent

No.2-Insurer

examined

one

witness as RW.1 and got marked one document as

Ex.R.1 and the 1^st respondent deposed before the

tribunal as RW.2.

8.

On the basis of material evidence both

oral and documentary, the tribunal dismissed the

claim petition with exemplary costs of Rs.3,000/-.

- 6 -

9.

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the

claim petition, the claimant is before this Court

challenging the same.

10. It is the vehement con