UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD. Vs. G. MUNISHA

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 insurance company being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', for short) vide judgment dated 14.11.2015.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 11.05.2014 at about 3.30 p.m. deceased S.Lakshamma alias Lakshmi was proceeding towards Tirumala from Bangalore in Indica Car bearing registration No.KA05-Z-3055 for seeking darshan of Lord Venkateshwara along with her relatives viz., Ashok Kumar, husband and daughter Gopika. When they reached near Alkuppam Village on Bangalore Palamer Road, the driver of Tanker Trolley bearing registration No.TN01-Y-0054 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the Indica car in which deceased was traveling. As a result of impact of the tractor trolley, all the persons traveling in the car sustained multiple grievous injuries. One of the passengers in the car viz., Ashok Kumar succumbed to the injuries on spot whereas, S.Lakshamma was shifted to the hospital and during the course of treatment expired on 21.05.2014.

(3.) The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that deceased at the time of accident was aged about 21 years and was working as trimmer in M/s Prateek Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-. It was further pleaded that deceased was only earning member of the family and the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the tanker trolley. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs along with interest. The respondent No.1 did not appear and was proceeded exparte. The respondent No.2 filed written statement in which inter alia it was pleaded that the claimants have not impleaded the owner and insurer of the Indica car and therefore, the petition is bad on account of non joinder of necessary parties. However, issuance of policy in respect of offending vehicle in question was admitted. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed by the appellant is highly excessive, exorbitant and is imaginary.