M KUTTUPPAN Vs. K P RADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 21. 1. 1994 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Kolar (Principal District Judge, kolar) whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,49,016 less interim relief, with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The Tribunal further found that the insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation amount. Feeling aggrieved from the judgment and award of the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle, namely, vehicle bearing No. CKN 4730 has come up in appeal.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are that on the fateful day, i. e. , 8,9. 1990 at about 8 p. m. , the deceased and the appellant were moving on the scooter in question and according to the claimants' case, the deceased was the pillion rider and the present appellant, who was respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, was the driver of the scooter. According to the claimants' case, the present appellant, i. e. , respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal was driving the scooter in a rash and negligent manner and as a result thereof, he lost control of the vehicle and the vehicle turned upside down. As a result of which, the pillion rider sustained fatal head injury and he was shifted to BEML Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Civil Hospital, KGF and was given the first aid and thereafter he was shifted to NIMHANS Hospital. But, in spite of all these treatments, C. V. Gopalan nambiyar (the deceased) breathed his last on 15. 9. 1990 and died an untimely death. The claimants asserted that the accident had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal, i. e. , present appellant. The claimants, therefore, claimed a sum of Rs. 3,60,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and costs.

(3.) THE written statement was filed on behalf of the present appellant as well as by the insurance company. They denied the case alleged in the claim petition and according to the case of the present appellant, who was respondent No. 1 before the tribunal, the claim petition was not maintainable. It was further asserted that the vehicle in question was being driven by the deceased and the accident, no doubt, did take place because the deceased had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. No doubt, it was admitted by the respondent No. 1 that after the deceased got injured, he was referred to NIMHANS hospital. The respondent No. 1 further alleged that the claim which was made was excessive and that the deceased who, according to the case of the respondents, had driven the scooter in question was under the influence of alcohol. The respondent No. 2, insurance company, also filed its objections and the respondent No. 2 took a plea that the insurance policy did not cover the risk of pillion rider. It was further alleged that the scooter was not insured on the date of accident and that the rider had no valid driving licence. The respondents also alleged that the claim of compensation was excessive and exorbitant and the petition should be dismissed.