CHANDRANAIKA RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE Vs. HANUMAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the Insured challenging the Judgment and Award passed in MVC No.904/2007 dated 27.03.2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chitradurga ['Tribunal', for short], questioning the fastening of liability on the insured.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 26.06.2007 at about 8.30 am when Hanumakka who was coolie in B.B.H. Mines was going to her work near G.M. Plant, a lorry bearing registration No.KA.02/D/1804 coming from Narahari Mines side in a rash and negligent manner dashed against said Hanumakka and as a result, she fell down and wheels of the lorry ran over her legs and thereby she has suffered fatal injuries . Hence, husband and minor children have claimed compensation. In pursuance of the claim petition, notices are issued against the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and both of them are represented through their Counsel and Respondent No.2 in the objection statement, denied the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver was not having a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. The Respondent No.1-owner also disputed the claim averments and contended that the vehicle was insured with the Respondent No.2 and the Respondent No.2 is liable to pay compensation.

(3.) The claimants, in order to substantiate their claim, have examined two witnesses PW.1 and PW.2 and got marked Exhibits.P1 to P13 and also case sheet of Victoria Hospital as Exhibit.C1. On the other hand, the respondents have examined one witness RW.1 and got marked Exhibits.R1 to R6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, granting compensation of Rs.4,58,000/- with 6% interest and with regard to liability, exonerated the liability of the insurance company and fastened the liability on the owner as driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the same was renewed subsequent to the accident. Hence, the present appeal by the insured contending that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured and he was having a driving licence and the same was renewed subsequent to the date of accident. The driver was having qualification to drive the vehicle, but only because it was expired, it cannot be a ground to fasten the liability on the insured. Learned counsel also submits that in the absence of documentary proof, the Tribunal has taken income at Rs.3,000/- per month and the compensation awarded is on the higher side.