REKHA Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER

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 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(2.) Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 11.12.2013, deceased Sheshadri, his wife and others after attending marriage of their relative at Kolar were returning to their village Anur in Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.KA-05/D-5434 being driven by its driver. At about 1.30 p.m. when the car was in between Shettimandamangala - Thotli Gates, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No.KA-07/F-1321 came from Chintamani side towards Kolar from opposite direction, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the car. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased died at the spot.

(3.) The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and was a mason and also doing agriculture and earning Rs.40,000/- p.m. and the claimants were dependants of the deceased. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/- along with interest. On service of notice, the respondent No.1 filed written statement, in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded by respondent No.1 that the driver of the bus was driven by an experienced driver without any blemish. The driver of the car drove the car at a high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and the driver of the bus in order to avoid the alleged mishap slowed down the bus and in that process of swerving the bus to the extreme left side the driver of the car dashed to the bus which was stopped and there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. It was further pleaded that the driver of the car was not having a valid licence to drive the car and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The owner and insurance company of the car were not made as parties. It was further denied the age, income and loss sustained by the claimants. It was further pleaded that the compensation claimed are excessive and exorbitant. The respondent No.2-owner of the car after coming on record and though appeared through the counsel, did not file any written statement.