UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SOMAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurer-United India Insurance Company and the claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21.12.2017, passed in MVC No.106/2014, by the Principal Civil Senior Civil Judge, CJM and Addl. MACT, Gadag, have filed this appeal and Cross Objection.

(2.) It is the case of the claimants before the tribunal that, the deceased Narayan is the husband of petitioner Nos.1 and petitioner No.2 is son of the deceased and petitioner No.3 is the daughter. On 12/3/2014 at about 11.00 a.m. on Nargund-Konnur Road, near Bandemma Nagar, the driver of the 407 vehicle bearing registration No.KA-25/8679 the deceased was travell ing along with goods and that the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and dashed to the electric pole situated on the side of the road. Due to the impact, the inmates sustained injuries and deceased Narayan sustained fatal injuries. He was shifted to KIMS Hospital , Hubli for better treatment and he lost his breath on 21/3/2014. The deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was doing agriculture and vendor of vegetable and fruits and earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. All the petitioners were depending upon the earning of the deceased Narayan. Due to the untimely death of the deceased, petitioners have been starving for their livel ihood. The accident was caused mainly, due to the rash and negl igent driving of the driver of respondent No.1. Therefore, they claimed compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- against the owner and insurer of the of fending vehicle.

(3.) In pursuance of the notice, respondent Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the tribunal . Respondent No.1 did not file any objection. Respondent No.2 filed the written statement contending that the petitioners are not entitled for compensation claimed in the case. Pol ice documents reveals that on the date of accident, the insured allowed the driver to carry four persons in the said vehicle though the sitting capacity is only 3. Therefore, insurer has violated the pol icy terms and condition and as such respondent No.2 is not l iable to pay compensation to the petitioners. It is further contended that the deceased was travell ing in the said vehicle as unauthorised passenger and the risk of such person is not covered under the policy. Insured has not paid any extra premium to cover the risk of the said person. Therefore, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.