PUSHPALATHA J Vs. SHRIRAMA GENERAL INSURANCE CO., LTD.

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 seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, against the judgment dated 27.01.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the MACT' for short).

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that deceased M.Nagaraju was proceeding as a pillion rider along with one N.K.Venkategowda on motor bike on Srirangapatna - Pandavapura Road. When they reached near Kudlakuppe Gate, lorry bearing registration No.KA-20-1677, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed the motor cycle. As a result of aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

(3.) The claimants thereupon filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that deceased was working as Professor in Vijaya 1st Grade College and was drawing a salary of Rs.97,708/- per month. It was further pleaded that claimants were dependant on the income of the deceased and the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.1,22,40,220/-. The respondent No.1 in the written statement pleaded that the lorry was insured with it on the date of accident. However, it was denied that the driver of the lorry was having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. It was further pleaded that in the absence of specific endorsement authorizing the driver to drive a heavy goods vehicle, the respondent No.2 has violated the provisions of the Act and committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. The age, avocation and the income of the deceased was also denied and it was also pleaded that since, claimants No.1 and 2 have attained the age of majority, therefore, they cannot become dependants on the deceased. The respondent No.2 in the written statement denied the age, avocation, income and earning capacity of the deceased. It was also denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The respondent No.3 in the written statement denied the averments made in the petition with regard to age, avocation, income and earning capacity as well as nature of accident. It was also denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. It was also pleaded that liability if any, is of respondent No.1 who is the insurer of the vehicle.