PUTTATAYAMMA, W/O LATE CHELUVEGOWDA AND OTHERS Vs. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE NO. 2240: 4, I BUILDING, CHANNARAYAPATTNA, REPRESENTED BY THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MANSION, GANDHI BAZAR ROAD, HASSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants have filed this appeal being aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petition by the MACT, Channarayapattna in MVC No. 110/2005.

(2.) THE facts leading to this case are as hereunder: In a road traffic accident that occurred on 14.1.2005, deceased Cheluvegowda sustained grievous injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Mahindra Jeep bearing No. KA -13 -M -2300. Later he succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was lodged against owner and Insurance Company of the jeep. Owner was represented through a counsel and Insurance Company filed a written statement contending that the driver of jeep did not possess any valid driving license. Therefore, liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company.

(3.) IN order to prove their contentions, the claimants examined two witnesses viz., PW.1 -widow of the deceased and PW.2 -eye -witness to the accident and relied upon EXS.P.1 to P.9. One Kaveriyappa was examined is RW. 1 on behalf of the Respondents and they relied upon Exs.R.1 to R.4. The Tribunal without considering the pleadings of parties disbelieved the evidence of PW.2 and came to the conclusion that Jeep did not dash the deceased and he did not die on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Jeep. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed. Admittedly accident occurred in the night. Complaint is lodged by the son of the deceased who was not an eyewitness. Later police filed charge sheet against the driver of the Jeep who has accepted the occurrence of the accident. The owner has not denied the involvement of the Jeep in the accident. Similarly the Insurance Company also did not take such a contention. On the other hand, the Insurance Company contended that the driver of the Jeep did not possess valid driving license and contended that the claimants are not the legal representatives of deceased Cheluvegowda. Therefore, in such circumstances what was required to be proved by the Insurance Company was that the driver of the jeep had not possessed valid driving license. Contrary to the same, the Tribunal without considering the pleadings of the parties has dismissed the claim petition en the ground that the vehicle in question has not involved in the accident even though such a defence had not been taken either by the owner of the jeep or by the Insurance Company. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, we hold that the findings of the Tribunal on the question of negligence is perverse.