NAGAPPAIAH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of the Judgment and award, dated 7.1.78, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chickmagalur, In Misc. (MVC) No. 20/1976, on its file, awarding Compensation of Rs. 22,000 together with interest and costs to the injured claimant.

(2.) It is the case of the injumed claimant Bhaskara, that he and his father Thimmappa P. W. 2. boarded a lorry in Yeshawantapur in the night of 4/5.6.76 to go to Shimoga, the lorry was bearing No. MYS. 7557. They were sitting in the seat behind the driver. The said lorry was driven by the 5th respondent in the petition When the lorry was going at a distance of 3 miles from Mattigatta and proceeding towards Kadur, at about 11.30 P.M., another lorry bearing No. MYS. 6571 belonging ,to the first respondent in the petition and driven by the. second respondent in the petition came from the opposite direction with great speed and the two lorries collided in the. middle of the road and the front glass of the lorry in which Bhaskara was sitting broke and the pieces flung against his face and hit the left eye of Bhaskara causing him bleeding injuries in the eye and he was immediately removed to Kadur hospital where he was given first aid and then taken to Shimoga Hospital and then to Minto Eye hospital in Bangalore. Ultimately his left eye had to be removed and he has been left without sight in the left eye. Oa these averments he claimed compensenation of Rs. 80,000 from the owner, driver and insurer of both the lorries, namely, respondents 1 to 6 in the petition. The owner of the lorry in which Bhaskara was travelling denied his liability on the ground that he did not permit the driver to take any passenger. Further the driver contended that he was not liable for compensation because the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the other lorry bearing No. MYS. 6571. The Insurance Company denied its liability stating that it had not insured the vehicle for passengers in the lorry. The driver of the other lorry, namely, respondent-2 denied that he was rash and negligent in causing the accident. On the same ground the owner as also the insurance company denied liability. The Tribunal raised the following issues in the case:

(3.) During hearing the petitioner examined himself as P. W. 1 and examined P. Ws. 2 to 4 in support of his case. He also got marked Ex. P-1 to P-43. As against, the first respondent examined himself as R. W. 1 and got marked Ex. R-1, the Insurance policy of the vehicle, Ex. R. 2 certified copy of the F.I.R. in C. C. No. 583/76 on the file of the Munsiff and JMFC, Kadur and closed his case. The 4th respondent examined his manager as R. W. 2 and closed his case. The 5th respondent Raman, examined himself as R.W. 3 and closed his case. The 6th respondent got marked Ex. R-3 the certified copy of the Insurance policy and closed its case. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record held that the accident was the result of composite negligence on the part of the drivers of both the lorries. The Tribunal further held that the claimant was entitled for general damages of Rs. 20,000 and special damages of Rs. 2,000 and in the view it took about actionable negligence it duelled the respondents 1 to 6 to pay the compensation awarded to the claimnant along with costs and interest jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the above appeals are instituted before this Court. The claimant has also filed cross-objections on the ground that the compensation awarded is low. The learned counsel for the owner of the lorry, namely, MYS 7557, appellant in M.F.A. 200/1978 strenuously urged before us that the owner of the lorry did not permit the driver to take any passenger and as such the owner was not liable to pay the compensation. He further submitted alternatively that if at all the owner was liable, the insurance company should have been held liable to pay the same. He also submitted that he compensation awarded was on the higher side.