VITTOBAI Vs. RAGHAVAN S

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is instituted under Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1839, by the original claimants in MVC NO. 182 of 1975 and is directed against the Judgment and Award dated 14th September, 1977, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore, dismissing the petition instituted under Sec. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for compensation

(2.) The petition was instituted by the present appellants claiming compensation for the death of K.S.Balaram who was the husband of the first petitioner and father of petitioners 2 to 7. It is the case of the claimants that Balaram was going on his Suvega bearing No. MEV. 6735 on 29-6-1975 at 6 p.m. on Margosa Road, near 10th Cross, Malleswaram, when respondent-1 who was riding the scooter in a rash and negligent manner came across and hit Suvega which resulted in severe injuries to Balaram and Balaram succumbed to the injuries in. the hospital on 7-7-1975. Balaram was 52 years of age at the time of death by injuries sustained in the accident. According to the claimants, he was earning Rs. 600 per month and he was the main bread winner of the family. Since the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the scooter, the petitioners claimed Rs. 50,000 as compensation from respondents. The Claim was resisted by the 1st respondent who filed statement of objections ON 13-9-1977. He contended that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of Suvega by the deceased. He denied his liabilities. Alternatively, he contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and exaggerated. Respondent-2 who is the owner of the scooter contended similarly. Respondent-3 is the insurer, who adopted the statement of objections filed by respondent-1. On these pleadings, the following issues were raised for decision by the Tribunal. (1) Whether the petitioners prove that deceased K. S. Balaram died due to the negligence of the rider of the scooter bearing No. MEW 1566? (2) What was the age of the deceased; what was the income of the deceased at the time of his death and what amount he was contributing for the maintenance of his family? (3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so, what amount and from whom?

(3.) In the course of the hearing, the petitioners examined five witnesses including the 2nd petitioner as PW. 2. They produced five documents Exht. P1 to P5. Against that, respondents examined only RW. 1 who is the 1st respondent. The Tribunal appreciating the evidence on record, held that the petitioners failed to establish that the" accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the scooter by the 1st respondent . In that view, it held that the petitioners were not entitled to any compensation and by its Judgment and Award dated, 14th September, 1977, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the 'said order, the claimants have come up in Appeal before this Court.