DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT Vs. PUTTAMMA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed against the judgment and award passed by the MACT, Hassan, dated 28.2.2012 in M.V.C.No.1126/2011, whereunder claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the legal heirs of deceased Sri. Rama Naik seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, has been allowed in part and a total compensation of Rs.5,44,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation, has been awarded.

(2.) Though matter is listed for admission by consent of learned Advocates it is taken up for final hearing. I have heard the arguments of Smt. Madhuri Gayakwad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Siddharth B. Muchandi, for the owner of the offending vehicle, Shri H.J. Ananda, learned counsel appearing for the claimants and learned Government Advocate for appellants.

(3.) Notice to R1 in the appeal filed by the claimants has been dispensed with by this court and Government Advocate represents R2 and R3 in the said appeal. It is the contention of Smt. Madhuri Gayakwad, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle that Tribunal committed a serious error in not arriving at a conclusion that the driver of the goods vehicle had contributed his 100% negligence for the cause of the accident. As such, she seeks for absolving the owner of the qualis vehicle of its liability. She would contend that the claimants have not produced the driving licence of the goods auto before the Tribunal and in the absence of the same, negligence cannot be attributed to the owner of the Qualis. She also disputes the age of the deceased as reflected in the post-mortem and submits that no corroborating evidence has been placed by the claimant before the Tribunal and as such, she seeks for allowing the appeal filed by the owner of the offending vehicle. She relies upon the judgment in the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VS. VEDWATI & OTHERS, 2007 AIR(SCW) 1505.