KANAKANAGOUDA Vs. DEVARADDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.F.A. No. 7501/2002 arises out of M.V.C. No. 237/1995. M.F.A. No. 7520/2002 arises out of M.V.C. No. 617/1995. The insurer has filed the appeals in M.F.A. Nos. 7768-70/2002 in respect of M.V.C. Nos. 237/1995, 238/1995 and 617/1995. The Tribunal has disposed of all the cases by a common judgment.

(2.) M.V.C. No. 238/1995 pertains to the death of one Hanamappa. M.V.C. No. 237/195 pertains to the death of one Smt. Gitanjali. M.V.C. No. 617/1995 pertains to the personal injuries caused to the petitioner.

(3.) IN M.V.C. No. 238/1995 it is stated that the deceased was travelling as a loader. The petitioner has let in oral evidence. The owner has filed written statement denying employment of Hanamappa as a loader in the lorry. On the basis of the averments made in the written statement, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the deceased was not a loader and was a passenger in the lorry. The view taken by the Tribunal is untenable. Allegations in the written statement do not constitute evidence. The owner has not stepped into the witness-box to substantiate his allegations in the written statement. There is no contra evidence to rebut the pleadings and oral evidence let in by the petitioner in proof of the fact that the deceased Hanamappa was a loader in the lorry. IN that view, the insurer incurs statutory liability to pay compensation to the loader in the lorry under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. Hence, the appeal filed by the INsurer in M.F.A. No. 7769/2002 is dismissed. The amount in deposit in M.F.A. No. 7769/2002 to be transmitted to the Tribunal for payment.