BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. KALIDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above appeals are filed under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'M.V. Act'), assailing the judgment and award dated 16.03.2019 in MVC No.1239/2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-VII at Bijapur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short). The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. is in appeal in MFA No.31375/2013 challenging the saddling of liability and the claimant is in appeal in MFA No.31459/2013 praying for enhancement of compensation.

(2.) The claimant-Kalidas filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 24.08.2011 involving car bearing No.MH-04/BQ-8138 and lorry bearing No.MH-12/BQ-2508. The claimant was inmate of the car and when it was proceeding on Solapur-Pandhrapur road and reached Degaon village, the car dashed to the hind side of the lorry which was stationed in middle of the road without any parking lights negligently and dangerously, due to which deceased Sanjay Dethe and Anil Khapale succumbed to the injuries, whereas the claimant-Kalidas sustained grievous injuries. The claimant stated that he was doing mason (goundi) work and earning a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month. As on the date of accident, the claimant was aged 30 years.

(3.) On service of notice, respondent No.1-owner of the lorry filed written statement admitting the ownership of the truck and further denying the claim petition averments. Respondent No.2-insurer of the lorry filed its statement stating that the claim petition averments are false and vexatious. It also contended that the Tribunal has no territorial jurisdiction. Further it also denied the nexus between the accident involving truck and the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. Further it also contended that the driver of the truck was not holding valid driving licence to drive the truck as on the date of accident. The truck was halted due to technical fault three days prior to the accident. Therefore, putting indicators does not arise. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. Respondent No.5-insuer of the car filed written statement stating that the accident had taken place in Maharashtra and the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, apart from denying the claim petition averments.