V SUMA DEVI Vs. MOHAMMED NASEERUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mfa 3847/2013 and MFA 3848/2013 are instituted by the claimants in MVC 2720/2009 and MVC 2721/2009, respectively, aggrieved by the finding attributing contributory negligence to the rider of the motorcycle and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation by common Judgment and award dated 21.6.2012 of the Court of Small Causes, Bangalore City, (SCCH-12, for short 'MACT'. MFA 3195/2013 and MFA 3196/2013 are preferred by the insurer of the lorry calling in question the very same Judgment and award. The appeals are clubbed together, finally heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) Facts briefly stated leading to the filing of claim petitions invoking Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'Act' are:- one Anand Kumar, aged 25, allegedly working in Government Pre-University college, as Tutor, and earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m., and another V.N.Ravi @ Ravikumar, aged 26, a tailor by occupation said to be earning Rs. 6,000/- p.m., while on a motorcycle bearing certificate of registration No.KA-53-E-9857, on 09.06.07 at 12 midnight, dashed against the hind side of the lorry bearing certificate of registration No.KA-01- B6411, on Bangalore-Kolar National Highway, near Kolathur gate, parked in the middle of the road since its tyre was punctured, whence the rider Anand Kumar succumbed to grievous injuries on the spot and the pillion rider Ravikumar succumbed to grievous injury in the hospital. On the allegation that the lorry was parked in the centre of the road without an indication by switching on the hazard lights/parking lights or any signal that the vehicle was parked, more so since at a curve in the road, not the place for parking of the lorry, a negligent act of the driver of the lorry, the widow and children the legal representative of the deceased filed claim petitions for compensation, invoking Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'Act'. The insurer of the lorry was arraigned as 2nd respondent and the insured as the 1st respondent in both the petitions, while the parents of the deceased were arraigned as respondents 3 and 4 in both the petitions.

(3.) Petitions were not opposed by the insured though the insurer filed objections and denied the assertions in the claim petitions. A plea was advanced that it was due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle the cause of the accident and that the police had justifiably registered a criminal case against the deceased rider. In addition, it was pleaded that the lorry was parked on the foot-path since one of the tyres was punctured, with parking lights cautioning drivers of vehicles. The insurer admitted the policy of insurance valid from 30.11.2006 to 29.11.2007, while the accident occurred on 9.6.2007 at 12 midnight.