MAHANTESH Vs. NETHARAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the owner of the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No .KA-27/A-8377 against the judgment and award dtd. 3/10/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal', for brevity) in MVC No.218/2015 on the ground of liability as well as on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

(2.) Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. The parties to this appeal are referred to by their rankings assigned to them before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

(3.) Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are: On 23/11/2014 at about 8.00 a .m. the claimant No.1 herein after washing cloths in Gokatti, was returning home along with her minor daughter baby Kalpana, aged about 2 years and when they reached near the building of Midiyappa Hindinmani on Guttal Belavigi road, the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No . KA-27/A-8377 which was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the minor girl Kalpana and caused the accident. Kalpana who suffered grievous in juries was immediately shifted to the hospital, but she succumbed to the injuries in the hospital. A criminal case was therefore registered against the driver of the offending tipper lorry. It is in this background, the claimants who are the parents of deceased Kalpana who was aged about 2 years as on the date of accident, had filed a claim petition under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the 'Act') claiming compensation of ₹ 6,00 ,000/- with interest from the driver, owner and insurer of the offending tipper lorry bearing registration No .KA-27/A-8377. The said claim petition was partly allowed by the Tribunal and a compensation of ₹ 5,90,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization was awarded and the 2nd respondent who is the owner of the offending tipper lorry was held liable to pay the compensation and accordingly he was directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the same, the owner of the offending tipper lorry is before this Court.