REVANAPPA Vs. PRABHULINGAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a claimants appeal against the judgment and decree dtd. 7/10/2013, made in MVC No.427/2012 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Gulbarga, granting compensation at Rs.5,30,000.00 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization.

(2.) The claimants are the husband and children of the deceased who filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.14,25,000.00 with interest contending that on 21/8/2011 at about 2.30 p.m., when the deceased was proceeding towards her village from Kamalapur to Bhag Hipparga and when she was came near Kudumud Thanda, at that time a jeep bearing registration No.KA-02/P-6127 came in a rash and negligent manner, endangering to human life, dashed to the deceased Revanamma and turn turtled ahead left side of the road and caused accident. As a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries on vital parts of the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Basaveshwar Teaching and General Hospital Gulbarga and subsequently referred to Ganga Hospital Solapur. When she was on the way of Solapur- Gulbarga, she succumbed to the injuries. It is further case of the claimants that prior to the accident the deceased Revanamma was 40 years and was doing coolie work and earning Rs.8,000.00 per month. The entire income was contributed for the welfare of the family and all the petitioners are depend on the income of the deceased etc. Therefore, prays for compensation.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 have filed objections separately denying all the petition averments made in the claim petition and contended that the jeep was insured with respondent No.3, so if any liability arose, same be shifted to the shoulder of the respondent No.3 and therefore the respondent Nos.1 and 2 prays for dismissal of the claim against them. The respondent No.3 insurance company filed the written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition and also denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and denied the accident and contended that the vehicle bearing registration No.KA-02/P-6127 was not insured with respondent insurance company. Therefore, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation. Further submitted that the claim petition of the petitioners is highly excessive, exorbitant without any basis and the driver of the jeep was not holding the valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident and also seeks protection under Sec. 170 of Motor Vehicle Act and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.