LEGAL MANAGER Vs. ANANTHA PADMANABHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A.No.6421/2016 has been filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) by the insurance company whereas, M.F.A.Crob.No.8/2017 under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC has been filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and also contributory negligence. Since, both, the appeal and the cross-objection arise out of the same accident as well as a common judgment, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of these appeal and cross-objection briefly stated are that on 01.12.2014 at about 8.20 p.m., deceased, namely, Pramod Rao was traveling along with his friends in a car bearing registration No.KA-53/P-351 from Koppala to Bangalore. When they reached near Nelahal, Sira - Tumkur NH-48 road, a tractor bearing registration No.KA-06/TA-3254- 3255 was taking turn towards service road. At that time, the driver of the car drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the tractor. As a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased died at the spot.

(3.) The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 28 years at the time of accident and was working as an Engineer at Quality Engineering and Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd. and was earning Rs. 32,000/- p.m. and the claimants were dependants of the deceased. The claimants claimed that they have spent Rs. 1,00,000/- towards funeral and obsequies of the deceased. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000,00/-. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 - owner of the car filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the vehicle had valid permit and was insured with the respondent No.2 and the insurance was in force as on the date of the alleged accident. The respondent No.2 has filed a detailed objection denying the allegations made by the claimants. It was further denied that the car was insured as on the date of the accident. It was pleaded that the driver of the car was not having effective driving licence and there was no valid permit and fitness certificate on the date of the accident. It was further pleaded that compensation claimed is excessive and exorbitant. The respondent No.3 did not appear inspite of service of notice and was placed ex-parte.