IFFCO Vs. R. VEERESH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant - Insurance Company was respondent No. 3 in M.V.C. No. 677/2007 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and VI Addl. MACT at Davanagere (henceforth, for brevity, referred to as 'Tribunal') The present respondent No. 1, was the claimant No. 1 in MVC No. 677/2007, whose claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was allowed in part by the Tribunal by its judgment and award dated 17.07.2010 and holding the petitioner who was entitled for compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,09,350/- from the respondents jointly and severally. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, the respondent - Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

(2.) In its memorandum of appeal, the appellant has taken a contention that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that respondent No.1/claimant had not approached the Tribunal with clean hands but he had manipulated the true facts only to make it a case for third party injury. It is further alleged that the Tribunal had lost sight of the fact that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 had allowed the goods vehicle to be used for carrying the passengers which was the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and also the conditions. The Tribunal also overlooked the evidence of RW1, the Doctor who treated the injured claimant immediately after the accident. This has led the Tribunal to pass an erroneous judgment.

(3.) In response to the notice, respondent No. 1 is being represented by his counsel, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 though served have remained un-represented. Lower Court records were called for and the same is placed before the Court. Heard the arguments from both sides. Perused the materials placed before me.