ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ULLASINI N KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of common judgment and award delivered by motor accidents claims tribunal No. 10, Bangalore city, in m. v. c. Case No. 1222 of 1986. The tribunal by award dated 9. 8. 88, has assessed the compensation in total to be Rs. 4,47,000 and awarded it to the extent of Rs. 3,50,250 with interest at 9 per cent per annum. The tribunal opined that accident in question did take place on account of no doubt, negligence of the driver of the vehicle tvs 50 bearing registration No. Aaq 920, but there was contributory negligence of the deceased to the extent of 25 per cent in the causing of or in the taking place of accident, and as such, it held that petitioners claimants are entitled to a total sum of Rs. 3,50,250, as compensation from the respondents before, with reference to 75 per cent negligence of rider/driver of vehicle and as such awarded the same with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum on the said amount. M. f. a. No. 203 of 1989, has been filed by the insurer, while appeal m. f. a. No. 2597 of 1988, has been filed byd. V. Chandrashekarthe rider of the vehicle and insurer and the appeal bearing m. f. a. No. 716 of 1989, has been filed by the owner of the vehicle and the claimants-petitioners have filed cross-appeal/cross-objections in appeal m. f. a. No. 2597 of 1988. That as all these appeals and cross-appeal do arise from the common judgment and award and arise out of one and same motor vehicle accident these are disposed of herewith by the one and the common judgment.

(2.) THE facts of the case in nutshell are that on 13. 8. 1986, at about 5. 25 p. m. , Dr. N. d. Kamble, who was working as the head of the social services management unit in the institute of social and economic change, Bangalore, was crossing the road near vasanta vihar from south to north. According to claimants' case, at that time, the vehicle tvs 50 bearing registration No. Aaq 920, driven by respondent No. 2, in the claim petition, i. e. , D. V. Chandrashekar, it was drizzling when he was riding the vehicle, and it came and dashed against Dr. N. d. Kamble aforesaid. That as a result thereof Dr. Kamble fell down on the road and sustained head injuries. He was shifted to victoria hospital, but he was declared dead and the matter was reported to the chickpet police station and investigations were taken. According to the claimants' case, Dr. N. d. Kamble was a highly qualified person having got many degrees to his credit. He was awarded three doctorate degrees by three different universities for his research papers on economics, political science and anthropology. He was also the master of arts and graduate in law. At the time of accident he was working as the head of social services management unit in the institute for social and economic change, Bangalore and his gross salary was Rs. 4,359. 65 per month. He was also a visiting professor to various universities in India and abroad, and according to claimants, he was getting average income of Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 8,000 per month. According to claimants, Dr. Kamble was contributing his entire salary to the family and on account of sudden death of Dr. Kamble, the family suffered loss, to a greater extent including, of consortium and of fatherly guidance and affection to his children. The case of the claimants has been that the deceased was only bread-earner and was free from bad habits. At the time of accident, he was aged about 45 years. According to petitioners' case, the petitioner No. 1 spent a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards funeral and other ceremonies. The claimants claimed compensation in total to the tune of Rs. 8,10,000, under various heads.

(3.) NOTICES were issued by the claims tribunal to the respondents and they appeared and filed their separate written statements: that it was admitted that respondent No. 2 (before the tribunal) D. V. Chandrashekar was driving the vehicle tvs 50, at the time of accident and that n. k. Dutta, present respondent No. 4 (i. e. , respondent No. 1 before the tribunal) has been owner of vehicle tvs 50 and with respondent No. 3 (before the tribunal), i. e. , oriental insurance co. Ltd. The present appellant in m. f. a. No. 203 of 1989, i. e. , appellant No. 2 in m. f. a. No. 2597 of 1988, the vehicle tvs 50 was insured, and covered by the insurance policy on the date of accident. The respondents denied their liability for accident as well as to pay compensation and pleaded in defence that: (a) the death of Dr. N. d. Kamble was not by their motor vehicle nor did accident causing death of Dr. N. d. Kamble take place on account of vehicle tvs 50. (b) there was no connection or proximity between the death of Dr. Kamble and driving tvs 50, by respondent No. 2 on k. g. Road, (c) there was no pedestrian crossing near neo Mysore cafe on k. g. Road where the deceased attempted to cross the road. It was further alleged that accident which caused death of Dr. Kamble was only on account of own negligence of Dr. Kamble himself, as he was in confused state of mind, and fell on the road. Insurance company also took the plea that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the respondent No. 2, the driver or rider had no valid driving licence. It was also alleged that claim for the dependency has been grossly exaggerated and the claimants are not entitled to get that amount. The respondent No. 1, that is the owner of the vehicle, also took the plea to the effect that respondent No. 2 before the tribunal had taken away the vehicle without knowledge and information of respondent No. 1, the owner of the vehicle and the inmates of the house. That according to case of respondent No. 1, who is appellant in appeal m. f. a. No. 716 of 1989, the respondent No. 2 D. V. Chandrashekar was holding a valid driving licence and he was not disqualified under the Provisions of Motor Vehicles Act from driving the motor vehicle and, therefore, respondent No. 3 insurance company which is present appellant in the appeal, i. e. , m. f. a. No. 203 of 1989, is and has been liable to pay the compensation. It was further pleaded that respondent No. 2 was the practising chartered accountant and held a permanent driving licence from 1. 9. 86. The vehicle in question driven by respondent No. 2 could not and did not hit the deceased.