NAGEGOWDA Vs. K.N. NAGARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dtd. 20/4/2012, passed in M.V.C.No.431/2011, on the file of the Fast Track Court III and MACT, Mysore ('the Tribunal' for short).

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that Lakshmamma, who was a house-wife and agriculturist, aged about 45 years was a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-09-EB-2311 ridden by respondent No.1 at about 12.00 p.m. on 5/8/2010. When respondent No.1 was riding the said motorcycle with Lakshmamma on his pillion seat near Badakanakoppalu Village at about 12.00 p.m., dogs came across the bike. Thereby, respondent No.1 hit the said dogs, as a result, the wife of petitioner No.1 fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injury on her head and respondent No.1 also sustained simple injuries. Immediately after the accident, Smt. Lakshmamma - wife of first petitioner was shifted to K.R.Nagar Government hospital and thereafter to K R Hospital, Mysuru for better treatment on 5/8/2010 and in the said hospital she was an inpatient from 5/8/2010 to 8/8/2010 and died in the hospital on 8/8/2010 and post mortem was also conducted. It is the case of the claimants that they have spent an amount of Rs.15,000.00 to take the dead body to their village and the deceased was earning Rs.2,00,000.00 per year and as a result of the alleged accident, the family members have lost their earning member and the claimants are the dependants on the income of the deceased. Hence, they filed the claim petition before the Tribunal. In pursuance of the claim petition, notice was issued to the respondents and they have appeared through their respective counsel but respondent No.2-Insurance Company only filed the objections denying all the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is exorbitant and also contended that the claimants are not the legal representatives of the deceased. The liability is also subject to the conditions of the policy. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, examined third claimant as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P10. The respondents have not examined any witnesses and also not produced any documents to disprove the case of the claimants. The Tribunal after considering both the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the accident has not been proved. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the claimants.