SHRIRAM GEN INS CO LTD Vs. RESHMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurer Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 20.4.2013, passed in MVC No.103/2012, by the District Judge and MACT, Gadag, have filed these appeals.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that her husband aged about 24 years was working as a welding mestri in his own garage. On 18.3.2012 at about 8.30 p.m. the deceased Adamsab along with his friend Manjunath @ Mallappa was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-37/J- 7481. After completing their personal work, they were returning to their homes; when they were going slowly and cautiously on the correct side of the road and when they reached near third petrol pump on Gadag Hubballi road, a TATA tanker bearing registration No.KA-25/B-6264 came from opposite side in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle and due to the said impact the rider of the motorcycle was thrown out and he sustained grievous injuries on his head and died on the spot. The body was shi fted to KIMS hospital for postmortem examination. Thereafter the petitioner performed the funeral and other obsequies. The petitioner spent Rs. 1,50,000/- towards funeral and other religious obsequies. Prior to the accident the deceased was hale and healthy and working as welding mestri at Shiraguppi . He was specialist in welding and he was having his own garage and earning Rs. 15,000/- per month and contributing the entire earnings for his family. The petitioner is the wife of the deceased. She has undergone deep mental shock and agony, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. There is no other persons in the family to earn for them. The accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker. Respondent No.1 is the owner and respondent No.2 is the insurer and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Therefore, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 25,00,000/- against respondents No.1 and 2.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice, respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal and only respondent No.2 has filed the written statement. He has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased. He has denied that the accident took place between the motorcycle and the tanker as alleged. He has also denied that the petitioner has spent Rs. 1,50,000/- towards transportation of dead body and funeral expenses etc. , . He further contended that the accident took place due to hasty decision and negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle who was also not having valid and effective driving licence. Therefore liability of the respondent No.2 is limited to 50% only that too subject to terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The owner of the vehicle has violated the permit conditions. Therefore the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non compliance of section 134(c) and 158(R) of the M.V.Act.