CHANDAKANT PARAPPA GANDROLI Vs. GANGAWWA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The claimants made the claim before the Tribunal that the deceased Shankar Patil was going in Tempo Trax on 13/6/2008 along with his friends and the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he lost the control over the vehicle and dashed to the front going tractor and trailer and as a result, Shankar Patil, who sustained injuries, succumbed to the injuries and hence claim was made before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 appeared through their independent advocates and though several opportunities were given to respondent No.1, he did not file objections to the main petition. The respondent No.2 has filed the written statement denying the claim made by the claimants. The claimants in order to substantiate their case, examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 9. On the other hand, the respondents examined one witness as R.W.1 and also produced the copy of the policy as Ex.R.1. The Tribunal after considering the material on record, allowed the claim petition granting compensation of Rs.4,21,000.00 with 6% interest and directed respondent No.1 owner to deposit the entire compensation amount and exonerated the liability of respondent Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the owner/insured.

(3.) The main contention of the appellant/owner is that the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there is a delay of one day in lodging the complaint and the said vehicle tempo trax is not at all involved in the accident. The police have wrongly charge-sheeted the driver of the tempo trax and the evidence of P.W.2 reveals that there is another vehicle which is involved in the accident i.e., tractor and trailer. There is a contributory negligence on the part of the tractor and trailer also. The Tribunal ought not to have saddled the liability on the insurer of the vehicle, since the vehicle was insured with respondent No.4.