BHIMAVVA Vs. SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals arise out of a common Orderpassed by addl. District judge and m. a. c. t. , gulbarga, whereby m. v. c. Nos. 348, 349 and 350 of 1989 have been allowed in part and an amount of Rs. 25,000 each awarded as compensation for the death of hanuman tharaya, narasamma and a minor child named Sri manth in a road accident. The claimants have appealed to this court for a suitable enhancement of the said amount and for holding the insurance company liable to make payment of the amount payable to them.

(2.) THE deceased hanumantharaya, his wife narasamma and their two minor children, named, adeappa and Sri manth were on 11. 7. 1989 travelling in a tractor-trailer owned by pampanagouda and insured with the respondent No. 3 insurance company. When the tractor which was carrying stones for construction of a hay shed of the owner reached near dyamnal village, it met with an accident and turned turtle resulting in the death of the aforementioned three persons and injuries to adeappa and another passenger, named, shivappa travelling in the same. M. v. c. Nos. 348 and 349 of 1989 were in the due course filed by the mother of the deceased hanumantharaya and his two minor children basavaraj and adeappa for payment of compensation. M. v. c. No. 350 of 1989 was filed by the brothers of deceased minor Sri manth for payment of compensation. The common case of the claimants in the three claim petitions was that the accident in question had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer by shankar its driver. Their further case was that the deceased hanumantharaya and narasamma were working as employees of pampanagouda with the result that the liability to pay compensation could be fastened on the insurance company concerned in terms of the provisions of Secrion 147 of the motor vehicles act and the policy of insurance issued by it.

(3.) THE claim petitions were opposed by the insurance company and the owner of the tractor-trailer involved in the accident, giving rise to three issues in each case. In support of the claim, the claimants examined one of them, namely, bhimavva as pw 1 apart from shivappa, one of the other injured employee who was also travelling with the deceased at the time of the accident. The respondent insurance company did not, however, examine any witness nor did the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle step into the witness-box.