NETHRA Vs. SRINIVASA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants are the claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 11-01-2011 made in MVC No.4944/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for short) filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and also fastening liability on the owner of the vehicle to compensate the claimants.

(2.) The appellants filed a claim petition contending that, husband of the first respondent and son of claimants 2 and 3, deceased P.Srinivasan, on 20-06-2009 at about 7.30 p.m., while he was boarding the bus bearing Registration No. KA-07/6566 near KEB Circle Stop, at Hoskote, driver of the bus without observing the signal of the conductor moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, P.Srinivasan fell on the road. The back wheel of the bus ran over him. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Bowring and Lady Curzon hospital, Bangalore. However, he succumbed to injuries. At the time of death, the deceased was aged about 28 years, working as a Mechanic operator in M/s. Perfect Kolibagh Private Limited and getting salary of Rs.10,000/- p.m. In view of death of the deceased, the family has lost the bread earner. Due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending bus which was insured with the second respondent, the accident had occurred and hence, the respondents 1 and 2 are liable to compensate the claimants to an extent of Rs.10,00,000/-.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, though the first respondent was served with notice, he remained unrepresented. The second respondent-insurance company filed written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and also contended that due to negligence on the part of the deceased, he fell down from the bus, sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same. Further, as on the date of accident, the insurance policy issued is subject to realization of cheque issued by the owner of the bus. However, the cheque issued by the owner of the bus towards premium amount was dishonored by the Bank for non-availability of sufficient funds. Dishonoring of the cheque was made known to the first respondent, however he has not taken any steps in that regard. Hence the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimants. Apart from that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive and exorbitant and hence sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the insurance company.