LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-239

M A RADHIKA Vs. ABOOBAKAR SIDDIQUE

Decided On June 08, 2015
M A Radhika Appellant
V/S
Aboobakar Siddique Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and award dated 26th March 2013 in M.V.C.No.736/2012 passed by the V Additional District Judge and MACT., Mysore, is under challenge in this appeal. The petition filed by the appellants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is dismissed by the learned District Judge, Mysore.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, consequent upon the death of late G.N.Srishaila, who is none other than the husband of the first appellant herein and father of second and third appellants, allegedly due to the vehicular accident that occurred on 21.12.2011 at 4.30 p.m., near Harangi Road Junction State Highway, Guddehosur, within the limits of Kushalnagara Police Station, the appellants filed the petition for compensation before the Tribunal. Their case was, at the time of the accident, the deceased was proceeding in an Innova car bearing registration No.KA -09/P -7848 from Mysore towards Suntikoppa; a jeep bearing registration No.KA -05/MC -4660 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side, dashed against the Innova car, resultantly the deceased suffered grievous injuries; he was hospitalized and treated; surgery was conducted; he was inpatient from 21.12.2011 to 26.12.2011. As per the advice of the Doctor, he was discharged and he succumbed to the injuries suffered during the accident. The deceased was aged 54 years and earning Rs.25,000/ - per month by his profession as a Manager in a Hotel. Accordingly, the petitioners claimed compensation of Rs.62,00,000/ - under various heads against the owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle/jeep bearing registration No.KA - 05/MC -4660 and the owner of the Toyota Innova Car in which the deceased was travelling and also the insurer of the car.

(3.) THE case was contested by the insurer of the offending jeep, so also the owner and insurer of the Innova car. After recording the evidence and giving audience to both parties, the learned Tribunal dismissed the petition on the ground that the death was not due to accidental injuries.