LAWS(KAR)-2020-6-578

BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. JAYAMMA

Decided On June 25, 2020
Branch Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited Appellant
V/S
JAYAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company which was the respondent No.2 before the Fast Track-III and Addl. MACT at Tumkur aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 30.11.2012.

(2.) It is the case of the respondent No.1- claimant that her son Sri K.P.Srinivasa while traveling in TATA Sumo bearing registration No.KA16 7191 to go to Muthyalamma temple in Ramagiri Mandal on 06.04.2010 met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the TATA Sumo vehicle, due to impact, the passengers in the vehicle had sustained grievous and simple injuries. Sri K.P.Srinivasa sustained grievous injury and was admitted to a Government hospital, Pavagada. After taking treatment for two days as 'inpatient', on 07.04.2010, the said K.P.Srinivasa succumbed to injuries sustained in the accident. It is further case of the claimant that at the time of accident and prior to the accident, the deceased K.P.Srinivasa was hale and healthy and was a Computer Operator in yuva.com in Madhugiri and was earning salary of Rs.8,000/- p.m. The claimant-mother of the deceased was completely depending upon the salary of the deceased. The deceased was unmarried and so the claimant sought for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till realization of the entire amount.

(3.) The respondent No.1 herein was the petitioner and the respondent No.2 herein is the owner of the TATA sumo vehicle and the appellant herein is the insurer of the offending vehicle. The respondent No.2 inspite of issuance of notice did not appear and was placed ex parte. The appellant herein had appeared before the Tribunal, but did not file written statement within the prescribed time, but however, he filed an application thereafter along with the written statement seeking permission from the Tribunal for acceptance of the written statement beyond the period prescribed, the same came to be rejected.