KOTESH Vs. SAMPATKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/claimants are before this Court not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the VAdditional District and Sessions Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VI, Belagavi (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) under judgment and award dated 23.01.2016 in MVC No.1450/2014 praying for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for parties, heard finally and disposed of by this order.

(3.) The claimants are the parents and brother of deceased Ganapathi @ Ganesh, who died in a road traffic accident. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of the deceased Ganapathi. It is stated that on 01.11.2013 when the deceased was proceeding in a goods tempo bearing registration No.KA-48/4741 along with his goods, the driver of the tempo drove the same with high speed in a rash and negligent manner due to which the vehicle toppled. The deceased caught beneath the vehicle and sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot. It is stated that the deceased had the qualification of B.A. B.Ed., and M.A. in Hindi and had excellent opportunity of getting government job. It is stated that he was conducting private tutorials and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month and he was aged 27 years as on the date of the accident. On issuance of notice, respondents appeared before the Tribunal and filed their objections. Respondent No.1 denied the petition averments and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Respondent No.2/insurer contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the accident. It is also contended that there is delay in filing the complaint and the cause of delay is not explained by the complainant. The insurer also contended that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident apart from contending that the deceased was traveling in goods vehicle as an unauthorized person. As such, it is contended that the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation.