LAWS(KAR)-2016-2-92

SANTOSH AND ORS. Vs. VITTAL AND ORS.

Decided On February 10, 2016
Santosh And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Vittal And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed against the common judgment and award dated 28.5.2011 passed in MVC No. 1922/2010, 1921/2010, 1924/2010 and 1926/2010 on the file of the Fast Track Court -II and Additional MACT., Belgaum, awarding Rs. 3,50,000/ -, Rs. 63,500/ -; Rs. 65,500/ - and Rs. 1,01,900/ - with 9% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

(2.) All these miscellaneous first appeals are arising out of the common accident occurred on 21.5.2010 and all the claimants were travelling in a Trax jeep bearing registration No. KA -24/3803 as the passengers and while it was proceeding near Chalkoppa Murgod Road, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, the said vehicle turned turtle on the side of the road, as a result, all the claimants sustained fractures as shown in column No. 11 of the claim petition and they were shifted to the Government Hospital, Bailhongal and thereafter they were shifted to Gopal Jungouda Bhartesh Hospital, Belgaum for treatment and they have spent huge amount towards their treatment. It was their contention that before the accident, they were hale and healthy and they were doing coolie work earning Rs. 6,000/ - per month. In view of the accident, they are not able to work as before. Therefore, they filed separate claim petitions for compensation as prayed for.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and filed objections denying the petition averments made therein contending that the claim made by the claimants are highly exorbitant and without any basis. They have also denied the age, occupation and income of all the claimants and also contended that the driver of the vehicle in question was driving in a moderate speed but in spite of the same, the accident had occurred. The driver was having valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions.