LAWS(KAR)-2019-8-38

SHRIRAM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PUSHPA

Decided On August 01, 2019
Shriram General Insurance Company Limited Appellant
V/S
PUSHPA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by appellant-insurance company against the judgment and award dated 24-10-2016 passed in M.V.C. No.400 of 2013 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Kolar (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal', for the sake of convenience) challenging the findings of the Tribunal on the point of rash and negligent parking of the offending vehicle by its driver and also on the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, particularly, adopting future prospects at 50% instead of 40%.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that, on 20-7-2012, N. Ramesh alias Yarrappa was going towards Kolar from Thambihalli by riding a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-07/K-449 along with the petitioner in M.V.C. No.399 of 2013. When they reached near Belaganahalli Milk Diary Bridge on Mulbagal Kolar National Highway-4, a lorry bearing Registration No.KA-43/7008 was parked on the tar portion of left side road by its driver negligently without any indication facing towards Kolar. In spite of due care and caution taken by the rider of the motorcycle, he could not notice the lorry that was parked due to heavy vehicles coming from opposite direction with high beam lights and as a result, N. Ramesh alias Yarrappa (the deceased) dashed against the stationed lorry and sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the same on the spot and the pillion rider also sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, it was contended that the accident occurred due to careless and negligent parking of the lorry by its driver. Therefore, the injured-pillion rider and the legal heirs of N. Ramesh alias Yarrappa filed M.V.C. No.399 of 2013 and M.V.C. No.400 of 2013 respectively before the Tribunal.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared through their counsel and filed separate statement of objections. Respondent No.1 contended that the offending vehicle is insured with respondent No.2 and the same was parked on extreme left side of the road by taking much care with indications. The deceased had no license to ride his motorcycle and he himself is responsible for the accident. The deceased drove the motorcycle at a high speed and dashed against the parked lorry. But the petitioners by colluding with the Police have created a false story against the driver of the lorry. It is further contended that the liability, if any, to be satisfied by respondent No.2- insurance company.