UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO , LTD Vs. SMITHA ANILKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are directed challenging the judgment and award dated 9.7.2013 passed by Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru City (SCCH-14) in MVC No.8494/2010.

(2.) Brief facts of the claimants' case before the tribunal are that on 18.5.2010 at about 11.30 p.m., the deceased Anil Kumar was driving his car bearing registration No.KA-05-MD-6607 carefully and cautiously with minimum speed on Kanakapura road. When the deceased reached near Coco Cola go-down, all of a sudden, a lorry bearing registration No.KA-01- D-1178 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner endangering to human life without observing the traffic rules and regulations. Suddenly, the driver of the lorry took right turn without giving any signal and dashed against the car of the deceased. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained multiple injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The claimants spent more than Rs.50,000/- towards transportation of the dead body and for funeral expenses. The deceased was hale and healthy, aged about 35 years and he was a business man earning Rs.10,00,000/- p.a. and he used to contribute the entire income for the maintenance of the family. Hence. The claimants claimed the compensation of Rs.2.00 crores. Respondent No.1 (insurance company) before the tribunal by filing the written statement denied all the allegations made in the petition. However, admitted the issuance of policy in respect of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-01-D-1178 in favour of respondent No.2 and it was subject to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It was also contended that respondent No.2 before the tribunal violated by the terms and conditions of the policy by entrusting the lorry to one Sri Suresh Gowda who had not possessed an effective and valid licence. The incident in question occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the deceased, who consumed alcohol and dashed to the rear side of the lorry. Respondent No.1 denied the date, time and place of accident as well as the injuries alleged to have occurred in the said accident. Respondent No.1 also denied the averment that the deceased was earning Rs.10,00,000/- p.a.

(3.) We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company so also the arguments of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants-claimants.