REGIONAL MANAGER Vs. VASANTH S.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A.No.7483/2016 has been filed by the Insurance Company, whereas, M.F.A.No.1048/2017 has been filed by the claimants under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 28.06.2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 05.10.2013 at about 9.40 a.m. deceased Keerthana was proceeding in a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KA-02-ES-7658 as pillion rider which was ridden by the husband of the deceased from her residence at Laggere towards Yalahanka and when they reached near Air Force East Halahalli Road, at that time, a Ford Fiesta Car bearing Reg.No.KL-57-E-0223 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, coming from same direction, dashed the said motorcycle from behind. As a result of which, deceased fell down and sustained severe head injury and injuries to other parts of the body. Immediately, she was shifted to M.S.Ramaiah Hospital, Wherein she succumbed to the injuries on 11.10.2013 while under treatment

(3.) The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground she was hale and healthy and working as a Store Operator at Beanstalk- a Mahendra Retails Pvt. Ltd., and she was drawing a salary of Rs.16,000/- p.m. Due to her untimely death, petitioners are facing great financial difficulties, mental shock and agony. It was pleaded that the accident in question was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said offending Ford Fiesta Car. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.30,00,000/- along with interest. On service of summons, the respondent No.1 filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the petition itself is false and frivolous in the eye of law. It was further pleaded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motor cycle. It was contended that in the complaint filed by the complainant it had been stated that one white colour car was involved, however the number of the car had not been mentioned. The same contents are narrated in the FIR. Even in Panchanama, Sketch and Inquest Report, vehicle number is mention as not known., but in this petition, the petitioner had given the vehicle number as KL-57-E- 0223. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition. Respondent No.2 did not appear and he was placed exparte.