LAWS(KAR)-2020-9-89

SAKAMMA Vs. HABIB SAB

Decided On September 03, 2020
SAKAMMA Appellant
V/S
Habib Sab Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) has been filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.04.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 24.01.2013 at about 4.30 p.m. deceased A.K.Bhimappa was driving his own passenger auto rickshaw bearing registration No.KA-17/V-1758 at 1st main road of Vinobanagar, which joins the PB road. At that time, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-02/B-6969 came from Aruna circle at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto rickshaw. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the auto rickshaw turtled and dashed against the road divider and 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 42 years at the time of accident and was an auto driver and earning Rs. 15,000/- p.m. and the claimants were dependants of the deceased. The claimants claimed that they have spent Rs. 50,000/- towards funeral and obsequies of the deceased. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 30,00,000/- along with interest. On service of notice, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed written statement and respondent No.1 adopted the written statement filed by respondent No.2, in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded by respondent No.2 that the vehicle is insured with respondent No.3 and hence the respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation. The respondent No.3 also denied the averments made in the petition. It was pleaded that the alleged accident is caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, who drove the auto rickshaw without following the traffic rules and due to his own negligence, the accident had occurred. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed are excessive and exorbitant.