(1.) THESE two appeals by the Insurance Company are directed against the common judgment and award dated 01.12.2008 passed by the XVI Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes and Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, in M.V.C.Nos.4508 & 4509 of 2007, questioning the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle of which the appellant is the insurer.
(2.) THE two claimants filed claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation for the personal injuries sustained by them in the motor vehicle accident that occurred at about 12:30 in the intervening night of 20th/21st of May 2007, in front of the Government Hospital in Devanahalli Town. As a result of the goods tempo in which they were travelling said to be as loaders and unloaders dashing against the lorry going ahead. THE claim petitions were filed against the owner and insurer of the goods tempo, as well as the lory involved in the accident. THE appellant Insurance Company is the insurer of the goods tempo in which the claimants were proceeding. THE claim petitions were contested by the two Insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident. THE appellant Insurance Company in its objection statement admitted the issuance of the policy in respect of the goods tempo and it is validity as on the date of the accident. However, the appellant denied the allegation that the claimants were proceeding in the goods tempo as loaders and unloaders. It was contended that the claimants were proceeding as unauthorised passengers in a goods vehicle. In the statement of objections, the appellant did not seriously disputed the occurrence of the accident, as a result of tempo dashing against the hind portion of the lorry going ahead. During the enquiry, the two claimants led evidence by examining themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2, wherein they reiterated that the accident was solely due to the negligence of the driver of the tempo in which they were proceeding. However, the appellant Insurance Company did not led any oral evidence and only document produced by the appellant was the copy of the Insurance Policy.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel on both sides and having perused the records, I find no substance in the contention urged by the learned counsel for the appellants.