The appellant's negligence precluded compensation in the motor vehicle accident claim.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

This Appeal is filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 04.02.2014 passed in MVC No.539/2010 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Ranebennur.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

3. On 14.02.2010, at about 12.45 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KA-16/K-9718 on Ranebennur-Guttal road. At that time, the driver of the NWKRTC bus driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed to the petitioner’s motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Hence, the petitioner filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act claiming a compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. The NWKRTC filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and prays to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

6. The petitioner, to substantiate his case, examined himself as P.W.1, examined three witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 4, and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P8. On the other hand, the NWKRTC has not examined any witness nor produced any documents.

7. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition vide judgment dated 04.02.2014.

8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed in MVC No.539/2010, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

9. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned counsel for the NWKRTC.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. To prove the accident, the petitioner has produced a charge sheet marked as Ex.P6. The Tribunal has committed an error in discarding Ex.P6 and held that the accident has not occurred. He also submits that there is no rebuttal evidence on behalf of the NWKRTC. Therefore, the Tribunal should have allowed the claim petition, on the contrary has dismissed the claim petition. The petitioner has also examined the doctor to prove the disability. The Tribunal without considering the said aspect has dismissed the claim petition. Hence, he submits that the judgment passed by the Tribunal is perverse and arbitrary, and accordingly, prays to allow the appeal.

11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the NWKRTC submits that the petitioner has failed to prove the accident and the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. The Tribunal considering the entire evidence on record has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

12. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

13. The point, that would arise for my consideration is regarding the liability.

14. Admittedly, the charge sheet is filed against the petitioner himself. The petitioner has produced the charge sheet marked as Ex.P6, which discloses that he himself is negligent in riding the motorcycle, and the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner himself. Moreover, the petitioner has sustained simple injuries. The Tribunal placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED VS PREMALATHA SHUKLA AND OTHERS reported in 2008(1) CIV