MAHADEVAIAH Vs. MANAGING PARTNER DURGAMBA MOTORS, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) have been filed by the claimants against the judgment dated 04.01.2014 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the tribunal for short). MFA No.6656/2014 has been filed by the legal representatives of deceased Dhananjaya, whereas MFA No.640/2015 has been filed by injured Harish Kumar seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that deceased Dhananjaya in the night intervening 11.06.2011 and 12.06.2011 was riding a vehicle viz., Tata Sierra bearing registration No.KA05-M- 7977 and the injured Harish Kumar was occupant in the aforesaid vehicle. At about 1.00 a.m. on National Highway No.48, B.M.Road, when they reached Bharathalli and were proceeding further, a driver of the bus bearing registration No.KA01-D-3094, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. In the aforesaid accident, deceased Dhananjay succumbed to the injuries and the claimant R. Harish Kumar sustained grievous injuries. The legal representatives of deceased Dhananjay and the injured Harish Kumar filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter alia on the ground that deceased was aged about 29 years and was working as sales officer in M/s HBL Global Private Ltd., Bangalore and was earning monthly salary of Rs.26,885/-. The injured Harish Kumar pleaded in his petition that he was employed as Marketing Executive Leader in M/S Habitat Ventures and was earning monthly income of Rs.16,000/-. It was further pleaded that on account of injuries sustained in the accident, the injured had to take leave for three and half months. It was also pleaded that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Accordingly, the compensation was sought.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1 and 3 filed the written statement, in which inter alia it was admitted that respondent No.1 is the owner of the bus. However, it was pleaded that the aforesaid bus was insured with respondent No.2. In its written statement, the age, occupations and incomes of the deceased as well as injured were denied and it was pleaded that the compensation as prayed for is excessive and speculative. The respondent No.2 pleaded that the driver of the bus was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of compensation and the accident took place due to contributory negligence of the deceased who was unmindful of the traffic and movement of the vehicles without following traffic rules. It was also pleaded that the police have filed the charge sheet against the driver of the bus as well as the deceased and respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. The respondent No.3 viz., the insurer of the vehicle which was being driven by the deceased pleaded that he was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle as insurance policy was in 'Act policy'. It was also pleaded that since the additional premium was not paid, therefore, occupant of the car was not covered under the policy of insurance.