DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. TARABAI SHARNAPPA BHUSNOOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16.01.2017 passed in MVC No. 338/2015 by the III Addl. Senior Civil Judge & MACT, Kalaburagi.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that on 11.04.2013 at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased Nagaraj along with his cousin Babu were proceeding towards Aloor village, Tq. Aland to attend the death anniversary of Grandmother of the deceased Nagaraj, when they were proceeding, the deceased Nagaraj was riding motorcycle bearing No. KA-32/Y- 6158 and Babu was pillion rider. When they were near Bhimalli Cross, one Swaraj Tractor and Trolley bearing Reg.No.KA-32/T-519/T-520 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle due to which the deceased and pillion rider fell on the ground and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, the deceased Nagaraj was admitted in Basaveshwar Hospital and as per the advise of the doctor he was shifted to Higher center and admitted in Gangamai Hospital, Solapur, where he was treated for 12 days. However, he succumbed to the injuries during the treatment. They have spent huge amount for treatment. Prior to the accident, the deceased was hale and healthy and was doing Goldsmith business and earning Rs.2,50,000/- per annum and also the President of Saispoorthy Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Sangha, Kalaburagi. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petition seeking compensation against the owner and insurer of the Tractor and Trolley.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal. Respondent No. 1 filed written statement denying the age and income of the deceased. He has denied that there was any rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tractor and Trolley. The accident was due to rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the deceased. Further he contended that the vehicle which is involved in the accident is insured with respondent No. 2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence, respondent No. 2 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.