SHOBHA Vs. KANTESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants being aggrieved by the judgment and award dtd. 24/4/2014, passed in MVC No.169/2009, on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Ranebennur, have filed this appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the claimants before the tribunal that, on 6/3/2007, at 1.00 p.m., on P.B.Road, at Karjjari cross, the husband of the 1 s t petitioner was proceeding in his maruti car bearing No.KA-39/M-5555 towards Haveri. At that time the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No.KA-27/T- 3324-3325 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and where there was no prescribed way for crossing the highway, by his unmindful act, the driver of the said tractor and trailer tried to cross the highway without giving any signal or indication or without noticing the on-coming vehicles on the highway, as a result of which the said car of the deceased collided with the trailer resulting in occurrence of the accident thereby causing fatal injuries to the deceased. He was taken to Government Hospital, Ranebennur and then shifted to City Central Hospital, Davanagere, wherein on the same day he succumbed to the injuries. The first claimant being wife, claimants No.2 and 3 being minor children and claimants No.4 and 5 being parents of the deceased were all depending on the earnings of the deceased who was earning monthly Rs.25,000.00 by doing chilly business and also agriculture and due to his untimely death, the claimants have lost their bread earner. The accident in question occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending tractor and trailer by its driver. The 2 n d respondent being the owner and 3rd respondent being the insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000.00.

(3.) In pursuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 3 appeared before the tribunal through their counsel and the petition against respondent No.2 was dismissed as abated on account of his death. However during the pendency of the proceedings his legal representatives were impleaded as respondents No.2(a) to 2(e).