TATYASAHEB Vs. RAMESH SATYAPPA RINGANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants being dissatisfied with the common Judgment dated 01.02.2011 passed in M.V.C.Nos.2731 and 2733 of 2009 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional M.A.C.T, Gokak (for short the 'Tribunal') have filed these appeals.

(2.) It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on 11.05.2009 the petitioners and deceased Kashinath Ashok Madiwalar were proceeding on motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-23/L-3323 on Hukkeri-Ghataprabha Road along with their minor son Bharatesh Arvind Khot, when they were proceeding near the land of Satagouda Nerli a Truck bearing Registration No.KA-22/A-5775 came from Hukkeri side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the motorcycle and caused accident, due to the accident Bharatesh, Arvind and Kashinath sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. The claimants in M.V.C.Nos.2731 and 2733 of 2009 are father, mother and son of the deceased-Arvind and are grant parents and brother of the deceased- Bharatesh. The wife of deceased-Arvind and mother of deceased-Bharatesh, by name Roopali had died on 18.07.2005. The deceased-Bharatesh was aged about 9 years was a brilliant student in the school and used to participate in curriculum activities. The deceased- Arvind was aged about 40 years and was medical practitioner and was also managing agriculture land and earning Rs. 10,000.00 p.m. Therefore, the claimants filed the claim petitions against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The legal heirs of deceased- Kashinath also filed M.V.C.No.1261 of 2009. The Tribunal clubbed all the petitions and common evidence was recorded and disposed of by common Judgment.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 has filed the objections denying the various averments made in the petitions and denied that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the Truck and he has denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and that the petitioners were depending on the income of the deceased. It is also contended that the deceased-rider of the motorcycle had driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and due to his mistake the said accident was occurred. The deceased was also not holding the licence to drive the motorcycle. In case of any award, it may be saddled against the 2nd respondent. Respondent No.2-Insurer has filed the objections denying the averments made in the claim petitions and he has denied the age, income and occupation of the deceased. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle. Therefore, he is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also stated that the driver was not having driving license. Therefore, the claim petitions against him may be dismissed.