C K SEETHARAM Vs. JAYALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the owner of the motor vehicle, i. e. , the insured from the judgment and award dated 11. 11. 1993 in M. V. C. Case No. 1019 of 1989 which M. V. C. case had been decided along with other M. V. C. cases arising from one and same accident. The Tribunal in its award has ordered that M. V. C. Case No. 1019 of 1989 is allowed awarding compensation of rs. 1,47,000 only with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit and has directed the respondent No. 1 National Insurance Co. Ltd. to deposit rs. 10,000 with proportionate interest and respondent No. 2 C. K. Seetharam, owner of the lorry, to deposit Rs. 1,37,000 with proportionate interest and proportionate cost.

(2.) ACCORDING to the averments made in the claim petition on 10. 7. 1989 deceased Gangasundar at 7. 00 a. m. was travelling in a lorry bearing registration No. CRT 8200. That lorry according to the claimant's case was driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver of the lorry and it met with the accident which resulted in causing fatal injury to deceased Gangasundar who died on the spot. According to the claimant's case Gangasundar was aged about 26 years and was earning about a sum of Rs. 1,000 as an employee of Indian Oxygen Limited, Tumkur Road, bangalore. According to the claimant's case Gangasundar boarded the lorry bearing No. CRT 8200 near Kengal Kepohalli Gate on the Bangalore-Tumkur Road with his goods. Gangasundar had to engage the lorry to carry the goods, viz. , two bags of rice. He boarded the lorry along with his goods and paid the charges for transporting goods. According to the claimant's case, the claimant was sitting in the cabin of the lorry along with his goods and lorry proceeded towards bangalore, the driver drove the same in a rash and negligent manner as a result of which lorry bearing No. CRT 8200 dashed with the lorry No. CAS 6464 which was standing on the left side of the road. As a result of the above accident Gangasundar was injured and had died and was taken to the Dabaspet Primary Health Centre for conducting the post-mortem as he had died out of the injuries caused during the accident. After post-mortem, the claimants took the dead body of Gangasundar and performed the funeral ceremony, etc. , and spent a sum of Rs. 10,000. The claimant's case is that since on account of the death of Gangasundar which had taken place on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry No. CRT 8200, the family lost source of income and livelihood and as such the claimants made a claim for award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000 and that claim of the claimant was denied by the insurance company, i. e. , respondent No. 1 in the claim petition who is respondent No. 5 in the memo of appeal. Respondent No. 2 also filed its objections. They denied the allegations made in the claim petition. Respondent No. 2 to the claim petition, i. e. , the present appellant took the plea to the effect that the motor vehicle, i. e. , the lorry No. CRT 8200 was covered by a comprehensive insurance policy with respondent No. 1 insurance company, viz. , policy No. 60200-4630/614 Certificate no. 070775. Respondent No. 2 pleaded that he was not liable to pay any compensation. In para 3 of the written statement of respondent No. 2 there was no denial of the allegation that deceased Gangasundar was travelling in the lorry in question with the goods and it has been stated that it is correct to say that Gangasundar had engaged the lorry from Gate to transport or to carry two bags of rice to Bangalore. Respondent No. 2, i. e. , the present appellant in its written statement stated that the driver of the lorry was not driving with greater speed, rashly and negligently. As mentioned earlier respondent No. 2 denied the case pleaded by the claimant in other respects. On behalf of the insurance company, i. e. , the respondent No. 1, in the case as mentioned earlier, written statement was filed. The case pleaded by the claimant was denied by respondent No. 1 as well, but respondent No. 1 the insurance company admitted that lorry bearing registration No. CRT 8200 belonging to C. K. Seetharam, respondent No. 2, was insured with it and the period of insurance commenced from 13. 1. 1989 and it ran up to 12. 1. 90 and it was further averred that respondent No. 1's liability was to indemnify the liability subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The respondent No. 1, viz. , the insurance company by an amendment has raised the following plea as well by addition of para 7 in its written objections. The newly added para 7 reads as under: (7) This respondent states that the deceased Sundar had travelled in the lorry No. CRT 8200 on 10. 7. 1989 as a gratuitous passenger and the risk in respect of a passenger travelling in a goods vehicle not required to be covered under Section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and not being covered under the policy in question; this respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 10. 7. 1989 at about 7 a. m. while he was standing near kengal Kepohalli on Bangalore-Tumkur Road, that the vehicle bearing registration No. CRT 8200 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him in the act of overtaking another lorry, resulting in injuries to him? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, what amount? (3) What order?