JAYANTHI S SHETTY Vs. P SHIVAJI SHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short), preferred by the claimant in M. V. C. No. 696 of 1996 before the Court of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal at Udupi, the correctness of the judgment and award dated 27-7-1998 passed in that M. V. C. awarding compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- is challenged and enhancement of compensation to the extent of rs. 8,20,000/- is sought for by the allowing of this appeal.

(2.) THE brief facts, as claimed in the claim petition and leading to this appeal are as under. The son of the claimant-appellant by name Gautham Shetty, aged about 24 years, was driving a Maruthi car bearing registration No. KA-20-2000 owned by his father, the first respondent in the appeal as well as the MVC case, and accompanied by two of his doctor friends and was proceeding towards Udupi on the National Highway No. 17 on the midnight/early hours of 15-12-1995. At a spot called Balaipade near Kinnimulkey, the driver of the vehicle lost control of the vehicle which is attributed to the bad condition of the road and hit a tree on the right side of the road. The accident was gruesome enough to cause the instantaneous death of the driver Gautham Shetty, as also his two other friends in the car at that time. The claim petition inter alia pleaded that the deceased Gautham Shetty was the only son of the claimant; that he was a very dynamic, bright and promising youngster, who had just entered the legal profession and the premature death had snuffed out the aspirations of not only the deceased, but had caused untold misery and has brought gloom to the life of the claimant and her family etc.

(3.) THE claimant brought the claim before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Mangalore by filing the petition under Section 166 of the Act, claiming compensation for the death of her son involving the motor vehicle referred to above and a sum of Rs. 20,000/- was claimed towards the cost of the journey that the claimant had to undertake due to the death of her son; in the accident a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was also claimed towards funeral expenses, religious functions, obsequies ceremonies and other incidental expenses. The owner of the vehicle was impleaded as the first respondent who incidentally is no other than the husband of the claimant and father of the deceased person. The Insurance Company with which the vehicle had been insured, was impleaded as the second respondent to the claim petition. The claim petition was resisted by both respondents. While the first respondent filed a statement admitting the ownership of the vehicle involved in the accident, he emphatically denied that he was liable to pay any compensation amount as claimed in the claim petition. However, this respondent averred that the vehicle having been insured with the second respondent, it is only the second respondent who is liable to pay any amount as was claimed in the claim petition and as such pleaded for rejection of the petition insofar as the first respondent was concerned.