Negligence is established unless vehicular involvement and accident occurrence are disputed; compensation is awarded based on proven injuries and expenses.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition in MVC.No.1326/2020 dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and MACT-I, D.K. Mangaluru, the claimant is before this Court. The claim petition is filed seeking compensation of an amount Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 08.05.2020 at about 04.00 p.m. when he was going on a motorcycle bearing No.KA-19-HB-6200 from Beeri side towards Deralakatte, near Madoor Sharada Nagar and an auto rickshaw bearing No.KA- 19-D-1323 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result, he sustained the grievous injuries. Immediately, he was taken to treatment as an outpatient in Justice K.S. Hegde Charitable Hospital and thereafter he was in the hospital as an inpatient from 12.05.2020 to 20.05.2020 and spent more than Rs.1,30,000/- towards his medical expenses and also requires further amount for his future medical expenses.

3. In support of the case of the claimant, he has examined himself as PW.1 and another eyewitness as PW.2 and Ex.P1 to P12 are marked. On behalf of the respondent/Insurance Company, RW.1 is examined and Exhibits R1 and R2 are marked i.e., the insurance policy and the extract of driving licence.

4. The Insurance Company has filed its objections and the Insurance Company do not dispute the accident. However, according to them, the driver of the opposite vehicle is not having a valid driving license. In those circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal by order impugned dismissed the petition on the grounds that the accident had taken place on 08.05.2020 and the medical records are pertaining to 12.05.2020 and even the FIR was registered thereafter. As there is a delay in giving the complaint, the evidence of PW.2 alleged to be an eyewitness was not considered because he has failed to state about the other persons who were present at the time of accident and his name is also not shown in the medical records that he is the one who has taken the injured to the hospital. The Tribunal when it comes to the compensation arrived at an amount of Rs.90,000/- and dismissed the petition.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that when the Insurance Company itself is not disputing about the accident, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into the said aspect. It is submitted that the Tribunal without any basis has gone to the said issue. It is submitted that without any basis the evidence of PW.2 is disbelieved. Further, the amount of compensation that is determined by the Tribunal is also not a reasonable compensation and the claim petition ought to have been allowed and ought to have granted a reasonable compensation.

6. Learned counsel appearing to the Respondent/Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the petition. It is submitted that when he was admitted in Justice K.S Hegde Memorial Hospital on the same day, then there is no scrap of paper is placed before the Court to show that he was admitted. Then all the medical documents pertain to 12.05.2020. The Tribunal had rightly considered this and rightly held that they have not established the involvement of the vehicle. Further, it is submitted that as on the day the accident had taken place, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a driving licence as the same expired long back. Even on that count also, Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that the Tri