NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ARATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Miscellaneous First Appeal No.103288 of 2014 has been preferred by the insurer and MFA Cross-objection 100097 of 2015 has been preferred by the claimants assailing the judgment and award dated 30.09.2014 passed by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dharwad, in MVC No.616 of 2011.

(2.) Heard. MFA Crob is admitted and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are that on 06.02011 on the fateful day at about 5.00 pm, Suresh Patil was proceeding in a car bearing registration No.KA-25/P-8615 from Belgaum to Dharwad and when the said car came in front of this Court, the driver of the truck bearing registration No.AP-03-U-6395 which was proceeding ahead of the car, suddenly applied brake without giving any signal. As a result of the same, the car which was behind the truck dashed to it and Suresh Patil died on the spot. It is further contended that the Suresh Patil was hale and healthy and was doing agricultural work and was supplying milk to Ram Rahim Dairy, Dharwad and was earning Rs.50,000/- per month. For having lost the bread earner, wife, son and mother of the deceased filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation. In pursuance of the notice, respondent No.2-insurer appeared and filed its objections. By denying the contents of the petition, it is contended that the deceased himself drove the car rashly and negligently and as a result of the same, the alleged accident has taken place. It further contended that a complaint came to be filed after 3 days in collusion with respondent No.1. It is further contended that the said lorry has not been involved in the alleged accident and the driver of the lorry was not holding valid and effective driving licence. The 1st respondent-owner has violated the policy conditions; that the petitioners colluding with respondent No.1 and police authority have falsely implicated the above said vehicle. On these grounds, it prayed for dismissal of the petition.