VEERAPPA BANGERA Vs. ICICI LOMBARD 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 claimant No.1 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

(2.) Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that on 04.10.2010, the deceased Thejpal along with his uncle Padmanabha Poojary was proceeding towards Surathkal on a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-19Y-8784. When they reached in front of NITK guest house at about 9.15 a.m., a container tanker lorry bearing Registration No.MH-06AQ- 442 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, tried to overtake the motor cycle in which the deceased was traveling. The aforesaid lorry dashed the motor cycle, due to which, the deceased as well as the pillion rider were thrown out on the road and the lorry ran over them. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the spot.

(3.) Thereupon, the parents of the deceased filed a petition under Section 166(1) of the Act, in which inter alia it was pleaded that the deceased was aged about 32 years and was working as a Senior Site Engineer getting salary of Rs.18,800/- p.m. It was further pleaded that the family members were dependant on the income of the deceased for their livelihood. It was also pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear and were placed ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed its written statement in which inter alia the factum of accident was denied. It was further pleaded that the deceased had no driving license at the time of accident and he took a wrong side and contributed to the causing of the accident. Therefore, the instant case is a case of contributory negligence. It was also pleaded that the driver of the lorry was not having a effective and valid driving license at the time of accident and the lorry was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The age, avocation and income of the deceased was also denied and it was pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and excessive.