LAWS(KAR)-2020-1-237

REKHA Vs. CHANDRASHEKAR

Decided On January 21, 2020
REKHA Appellant
V/S
CHANDRASHEKAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 23/2/2012 passed in MVC No. 141/2011 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and AMACT, Haveri, has filed this appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that, on 14/12/2010, at about 4.30 p.m., on Ranebennur-Hubli Road, the petitioner along with her relative went to Heggeri lake to observe the side scene and they were returning in Auto rickshaw bearing registration No. KA-27/A-4481 belonging to respondent No. 1. When they were proceeding towards Haveri, the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. MH-10/Z-385 belonging to respondent No. 3 drove the same towards Ranebennur in a rash and negligent manner and driver of both the vehicles lost control due to which vehicles dashed against each other, causing accident. The petitioner sustained grievous injures in the said accident. She was shifted to Government Hospital, Haveri, and thereafter, she was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Hubli, where she took the treatment for three months and spent Rs. 25,000/- for the medical expenses. The petitioner was hale and healthy and aged about 14 years and a student participating in sports events and cultural activities in her school. Now, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she has become disabled. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles. Therefore, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/-, against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicles.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appeared before the Tribunal through their respective counsels. Respondent No. 1 did not file any objections. Respondent No. 2 filed objection denying the age, occupation and injuries sustained by the petitioner. It is also contended that respondent No. 1, the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that he entrusted the vehicle to an unauthorized person to drive the vehicle. Therefore, there is violation of terms and condition of the policy and as such, he is not liable to pay the compensation. Respondent No. 3 filed the objection denying the averments made in the claim petition and he has denied that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of his vehicle. But, the accident occurred due to negligent act of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 4 filed the objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. He has also denied the age, occupation and injuries sustained by the claimant and accident occurred due to the negligent act of driver of respondent No. 3. The driver of the insured vehicle did not posses valid driving licence and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation.