THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Vs. ROSHANABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is preferred by the National Insurance Co. Ltd., who is the respondent No. 2 before the trial Court in M.V.C. No. 23/08 on the file of the District Judge (Fast Track) & MACT, Haveri. The respondent No. 1 is represented by the counsel. Respondent No. 3 is the minor represented by respondent No. 1. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 though served unrepresented. For the purpose of convenience, I would like to retain the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the trial Court.

(2.) A lady by name Roshanabi, along with her two minor children filed a claim petition U/S 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation for untimely death of her husband by name Abdul Gafar Rajabali in a motor vehicle accident. The petitioners have claimed compensation on the ground that on 16.01.2005 at about 1.30 p.m. near Kusur Patri bridge of Mundagod -Yellapur road, the husband of the first claimant (deceased Abdul Gafar Rajabali) was proceeding on a bridge on a Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. GA -02/P/7159 along with his brother by name Abdul Rasheed as a pillion rider. The said Abdul Rasheed, the rider of the motorcycle drew the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life, resulted in the motorcycle hitting the wall of the bridge on the side of the road. The accident has resulted in the death of the husband of the first petitioner by name Abdul Gafar Rajabali who died on the spot itself. The deceased was shifted to Government Hospital and postmortem was conducted, etc. The respondent No. 1 -Gouse Mohidin who is the owner of the vehicle in question though served before the trial Court remained exparte. The respondent No. 2 who is the Insurance Company who indemnified the liability of respondent No. 1 contested the proceedings by filing objections disputing correctness of the facts and also liability of the Insurance Company. It is specifically pleaded by the respondent -Insurance Company that the rider of the vehicle had no valid and effective driving licence and it is also contended that the rider himself was at negligence and due to his negligence he lost his life in the accident. Therefore, the legal representatives cannot claim any compensation for the death of the person who was at fault.

(3.) I have carefully perused the judgment of the trial Court and the materials placed. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant Sri. Rajashekhar S. Arani and also Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.