MANJAMMA Vs. MUDDARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the claimants challenging the judgment and award dtd. 12/2/2013 passed in MVC No.556/2008 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and MACT-10, Tumkur ('the Tribunal' for short).

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that on 28/2/2008 at 5.00 p.m. the deceased was carrying milk cans on his TVS along with one Narayanappa as pillion rider and the deceased was riding the said TVS vehicle with milk cans towards Melkunte from Kurudanahalli and at that time, the tractor and trailer came from opposite direction and the driver of the said tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said TVS vehicle and caused the accident as a result, the rider of the TVS and pillion rider have sustained injuries and the rider of the TVS was taken to the hospital and there he was declared as dead. Hence, made the claim before the Tribunal stating that the deceased was doing milk vending business and earning Rs.12,000.00 p.m. The counsel for the Insurance Company appeared and filed the written statement contending that the accident was occurred due to the fault of the deceased himself hence, the question of payment of compensation does not arise. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim examined wife of the deceased as PW1, who lodged the complaint as PW2, eye-witness as PW3, pillion rider of TVS as PW4 and the Investigating Officer as PW5 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P22. On the other hand, the respondents have examined one witness as RW1 who is the official of the Insurance Company and got marked the documents at Ex.R1 to R6. The Tribunal after considering both the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the claim petition in coming to the conclusion that the material which discloses that the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of the deceased himself hence, answered Issued No.2 as negative and not answered the other Issues in coming to the conclusion that in view of the finding of Issue No.2, to consider the other Issues does not arise. Hence, the present appeal is filed.