- (1.) This is a claimant's appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries, which he has sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
(2.) It is the case of the claimant that he was aged 19 years, prosecuting his studies in III Semester of Engineering. On 10.08.2002 the petitioner was proceeding as a pillion rider on the motorcycle bearing no. KA-30/G-1800 on the road situated in front of Vandana Hotel at Ankola. When the said motorcycle was in front of the hotel, a tempo bearing no. CTD 9129 driven by its driver at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner dashed to the motorcycle from its rear side in which he was proceeding. On account of the impact, the petitioner fell down and sustained severe injuries on the head and other parts of the body. Immediately he was shifted to Arya Medical Centre, Ankola and later to Kasturba Medical College Hospital, Manipal, where he took treatment from 10.08.2002 to 03.10.2002. During his stay in the hospital, the injuries which, he had sustained to his head and other parts of the body were treated. Despite the same, he is not completely cured of his injuries and he has lost his memory power. On account of the same he is unable to prosecute his studies in Engineering which has marred his future career. Therefore he filed the petition claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs from the respondents who are the owner, driver and insurer of the tempo.
(3.) After service of notice it was reported that the second respondent-driver has expired. Respondent nos. 1 and 3 owner and insurer appeared through their counsel and filed their statement of objections contesting the claim of the petitioner. They contended that the accident in question has not taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, on the other hand it was due to the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle in which the injured was proceeding as a pillion rider. They also denied all the averments made in the claim petition in respect of the injuries sustained, treatment taken and amount spent for the same. The owner contended that the driver-second respondent to whom he had entrusted the vehicle to drive, did possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident. Further, he contended that as his car had been insured with the third respondent. If for any reason he is held liable, the liability to pay compensation be saddled on the third respondent. The third respondent/insurer contended that the driver of the car did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the car. They admitted the insurance policy which was in force on the date of accident but contended that their liability, if any, is governed by the terms and conditions of the policy issued by them. Accordingly both the respondents sought for dismissal of the petition as against them.;