This appeal under Section 173(1) of Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 8the

Act9) has been filed by the claimant being aggrieved

by the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2018 passed

by

MACT,

Bengaluru

(SCCH-23)

in

MVC

No.8288/2016.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 02.09.2016 at about 7.30

p.m. the claimant was walking in front of 8D9 Mart on

NH-7, Hosur 3 Bangalore service road, Electronic city,

Bangalore. At that time, a motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-06/EA-4598 being ridden by its

rider at a high speed and in a rash and negligent

3

manner, dashed to the claimant. As a result of the

aforesaid accident, the claimant sustained grievous

injuries and was hospitalized.

3.

The claimant filed a petition under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation. It was pleaded

that

he

spent

huge

amount

towards

medical

expenses, conveyance, etc. It was further pleaded

that the accident occurred purely on account of the

rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by

its driver.

4.

On service of notice, the respondent Nos.1

and 2 appeared through counsel and filed separate

written statements in which the averments made in

the petition were denied. The age, avocation and

income of the claimant and the medical expenses are

denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false

and frivolous in the eye of law.

4

It was further pleaded by respondent No.1 that

the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding

of the vehicle by the claimant himself. It was further

pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not

have valid driving licence as on the date of the

accident. It was further pleaded that the liability is

subject to terms and conditions of the policy. It was

further pleaded that the quantum of compensation

claimed by the claimant is exorbitant. Hence, they

sought for dismissal of the petition.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimant himself was

examined as PW-1 and Dr.Nagaraj B.N. was examined

as PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P18. On behalf of the respondents, three

witnesses were examined as RW-1 to RW-3 and got

exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R7. The

5

Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter alia,

held that the accident took place on account of rash

and negligent riding of the offending vehicle by its

rider, as a result of which, the claimant sustained

injuries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is

entitled to a compensation of Rs.97,137/- along with

interest @ 6% p.a. and directed the Insurance

Company to deposit 80% of the compensation

amount, i.e., 77,710/- along with interest. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6.

Sri D.S.Sridhar, the learned counsel for the

claimant has raised the following contentions:

Firstly, the accident occurred

due to the

negligence of the rider of the motorcycle bearing

registration No.KA-06/EA-4598. The rider of the

motorcycle ridden the same in a rash and negligent

manner and dashed to the claimant. The Tribunal has

6

erred in holding that the claimant has contributed

20% to the accident.

Secondly, police have registered FIR against the

rider of the motorcycle and they have filed the charge

sheet. It is very clear that the rider of the motorcycle

is negligent in causing the accident. The finding of the

Tribunal that the claimant has contributed 20% to the

accident is an error apparent on the face of the record

and contrary to the materials available on record.

Thirdly, due to the accident the claimant has

suffered grievous injuries. He was inpatient for a

period of 5 days. Even after discharge from the

hospital, he was not in a position to discharge his

regular work. He has suffered lot of pain during

treatment and he has to suffer the disability and

unhappiness throughout his life. Considering the

same, the compensation granted by the Tribun