UMESH BHANDARY Vs. VIJAYANANDA ROAD LINES PVT. 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 compensation being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 20.03.2012 at about 4.30 p.m. deceased Nagalakshmi who was a student of 4th semester of B.E. course in Computer Science, was waiting for a bus near Ramappa Memorial building opposite to Sahyadri Engineering College. At that time, a bus bearing registration No.KA-19 C-9829 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from Mangalore towards B.C. Road side at N.H.75 and took a sudden turn towards right side. A lorry bearing registration No.KA-25 A-6010 which was coming from the same direction and which was also driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and in a high speed took the lorry to the extreme left side of the road near the place where the deceased and others were waiting for the bus and dashed against them. As a result of the aforesaid accident, deceased Nagalakshmi was crushed and sustained grievous injuries. She was immediately shifted to the hospital and was an inpatient for a period from 20.03.2012 to 09.04.2012. Eventually, she succumbed to the injuries. Thereupon, the claimants filed a petition under Section 166(1) of the Act on the ground that the deceased, at the time of accident was a student of 4th semester of Computer Science Engineering in Sahyadri Engineering College, Mangalore and was aged about 19 years. It was further pleaded that the deceased had a bright future and she died on account of the accident. Accordingly, the claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.60,00,000/- along with interest. On service of notice, the respondent No.3 did not appear despite service of summons and was proceeded exparte. Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 entered appearance and filed written statement. The respondent No.1, in its written statement, denied all the averments made in the petition and it was pleaded that the compensation which has been claimed is contrary to law. It was also pleaded that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license and in case respondent No.1 is held liable to make payment of amount of compensation, liability has to be saddled on the respondent No.2 who is under an obligation to indemnify. The respondent No.2, in its written statement, denied the claim made by the claimants and pleaded that the claim of the claimants is exorbitant and baseless. It was also denied that the deceased died on account of the injury sustained in the accident. It was pleaded that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid and effective driving license and therefore, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No.4, in the objection statement, denied the claim of claimants and pleaded that the compensation claimed is exorbitant and baseless. The age as well as manner of accident was also denied. It was also denied that the driver of bus did not have a valid and effective license and therefore, the respondent No.4 has no liability to indemnify the respondent No.3.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. In order to prove their case, claimants examined 6 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-6 and got exhibited 128 documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P128. The respondents did not adduce any evidence but produced only the copy of insurance policy. The Claims Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.15,000/- and held that the claimants are entitled to Rs.15,98,015/- on account of compensation. Being aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.