RENAWWA Vs. MEHABOOB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are filed by the insurance company challenging the quantum and liability and the claimants have filed the cross objections challenging the quantum of compensation and questioning the judgment and award dtd. 3/12/2012 passed in MVC No.294/2011 by the Senior Civil Judge and MACT at Gangavathi.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the claimants who are the wife and children of deceased Somappa that on 7/6/2021 at about 12.30 p.m., at Sri Lakshmi Rice Mill, Kampli road, Gangavathi, when the deceased Somappa was unloading the paddy by standing on the paddy load of the lorry bearing No.KA28-A-7435, by that time, respondent No.1 being the driver of the said lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly moved the same without any information, as a result, the said Somappa fell down from the lorry and the paddy bags were also fell down on his body and on account of which, the deceased had sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the said injuries. Hence, made the claim claiming that the deceased was working as Hamali and earning Rs.6,000.00 per month and he was aged about 50 years at the time of his death and his family members have lost bread earner of the family. It is also contended that he was in the hospital for a period of 35 days and they have spent around sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 towards medical expenses.

(3.) In pursuance of this claim petition, notice was ordered and insurance company being respondent No.3 appeared and filed written statement contending that vehicle was not insured with respondent No.3 by the insured and denied the averments made in the claim petition. The insurance company also denied the income and wages of avocation and also sustaining the injury in the accident and the claim made by the claimant is exorbitant. The insurance company also denied the contention of the claimant that the accident was occurred on account of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.1 and spending an amount towards medical expenses. The policy does not cover the risk of the deceased as respondent No.2 has not paid the premium amount for the risk coverage of the deceased. It is also contended that without admitting the accident, if at all any liability, the same is also under Workmens Compensation Act and not under MV Act . It is also contended that respondent No.2 knowingfully well, allowed the driver who was not having driving licence to drive the above said vehicle and driving particulars are also not furnished and hence, insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.