SHANTHAMMA Vs. GIRISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants filed the present Miscellaneous First Appeal against the judgment and award dated 23.04.2016 passed in ECA No.86/2014 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT-VI, Shivamogga, awarding total compensation of Rs. 6,17,360/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

(2.) The claimants, who are the wife and son of deceased Ramachandra filed E.C.A.No.86/2014 claiming compensation, contending that, on 11.01.2013, at about 8.30 pm, on the instructions of the first respondent-owner of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-14/A-5380, the deceased Ramachandra after loading the gas cylinders in the said lorry, parked the same infront of Ravi Bhattara shop, NHP Circle, Koppa. The front space of the lorry was slant and a 407 vehicle was parked before the lorry at a distance of 25 feet. After parking the lorry, deceased Ramachandra got down and just walked 10 feet away. At that time, suddenly the lorry started moving towards him. The deceased made his best efforts to stop the moving lorry, but the back portion of the lorry touched him and he fell down. Later the lorry dashed against the 407 vehicle. Due to the said accident, Ramachandra sustained grievous injuries to his head, hands as well as legs. Immediately, he was shifted to Koppa Government Hospital in 108 ambulance. Thereafter, on the advise of the Doctor, he was shifted to Mc.Gan Hospital, Shivamogga, where he took treatment as inpatient for two days. Thereafter, he was shifted to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru for higher treatment. Then he was shifted to KMC Hospital, Manipal and Wenlock Hospital, Mangaluru. After getting treatment from the above said hospitals, he was again shifted to Mc.Gann Hospital, Shivamogga and after getting one week treatment, he died on 28.01.2013 at about 7.15 am. It is further contended that the first respondent-owner was paying monthly wages of Rs. 6,000/- plus Rs. 100 batta per day, to the deceased. Due to sudden death of Ramachandra, the claimants became penniless. Respondent No.1-owner and respondent No.2-insurer both are liable to pay the compensation.

(3.) The first respondent-owner of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-14/A-5380 filed objections denying the entire case of the claimants and contended that the deceased was working under him as driver and he was paying monthly wages of Rs. 4,000/- plus Rs. 100 batta per day. After the accident, he managed to pay all medical expenses of the deceased and the lorry was duly insured with the 2nd respondent as on the date of the accident. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the claim petition.