UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KAVERAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that the claimants are the mother and brother of the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy. On 07.12.2011, the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy, Junior Engineer, Jala Samvardhana Yojana Sangha, District Project Unit, Shivamogga, an undertaking of the Karnataka Government, was returning from Shivamogga after attending an official meeting in a TATA Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.KA.14-A-2740. Near Chamundipura village on Ayanoor-Ripponpet Road, the Bus bearing registration No.KA.17-A-7184 belonging to respondent No.2, driven by respondents No.1 in a rash and negligent manner and with a high speed, dashed against the said TATA Sumo vehicle in which the deceased G.R.Krishnamurthy and others were traveling. The deceased was seriously injured and he was first admitted to Mac. Gann Hospital and thereafter, shifted to Nanjappa Hospital and later, he was shifted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal for higher treatment. But, he could not respond to the treatment and died on 09.12.2011 in Kasturba Hospital itself. The monthly income of the deceased was Rs.15,750/- as gross salary and Rs.15,000/- from consultation, totally a sum of Rs.30,750/-. The accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bus by respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is vicariously liable being the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.3 being the Insurer of the offending vehicle, is responsible to pay the compensation. Therefore, the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming a total compensation of Rs.40,95,000/-.

(2.) In response to the service of notice, respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the Court. Respondent No.1 has filed his objections and the same has been adopted by respondent No.2 and respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed its objections separately.

(3.) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that respondent No.1 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and that was the cause for the accident. They pleaded ignorance about the relationship of the claimants with the deceased and the avocation of the deceased and other details. Even they have pleaded ignorance about the status of the deceased. They specifically contended that they are not responsible to answer the claim of the claimants. The vehicle is insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company and if the Court comes to the conclusion that the claimants are entitled for any compensation, respondent No.3 is liable to pay the same.