MAHABUBI Vs. SAGARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurers and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 28.12.2012 passed in MVC No.46/2010 by the Member, MACT-I Bagalkot have filed these appeals and cross objection.

(2.) It is the case of the claimant before the tribunal that on 03.02.2007 deceased Salima Savanur along with other persons were proceeding in a Tum Tum vehicle bearing No.K.A.29/7876 along with her goods from Khaj idonni towards Anawal . When the said vehicle was near Lokapur at about 8.00 p.m. the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle was driving the said vehicle in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Tractor and Trailer unit bearing No.K.A.48/T.181- 182 which was parked on the middle of the road without showing any signals or sings. In the said accident, said Salima sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in HSK Hospital , Bagalkot. The claimant incurred medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-. After conducting post mortem examination dead body was handed over the claimant. The accident in question has taken place due to the negligence on the part of drivers of both the vehicles. Further, it is mentioned that, deceased Salima was aged about 19 years and she was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month by doing coolie work. Due to the ultimately death of her daughter, the claimantmother sustained mental agony and facing financial crisis. The petitioner was depending on the earnings of her daughter Salima. Therefore, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs.4,20,000/- against the owners and insurers of both the vehicles stating that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

(3.) In pursuance to the notice, respondent No. 1 remained absent and he was placed as ex-parte, the respondents No.2 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statements. Respondent No.2 in his written statement denied all the allegations and claim of the claimant made in the claim petition. According to this respondent, driver of the Tum Tum vehicle was driving the vehicle slowly and cautiously. There was no negligence on his part for the said accident. On the contrary, there was gross negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer unit bearing Registration No.KA.48/T.181-182 as the said vehicle was parked on the middle of the road without observing the traffic rules. He has denied the age and earnings of the deceased. He has further stated that the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle was not holding valid driving licence. Therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.3 also denied claim of the claimant, age, occupation and income of the deceased. He has further contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tum Tum vehicle and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the Tractor and Trailer unit. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any compensation. Respondent No.4 filed written statement on the same line that of the written statement of respondent No.3. The other insurer has contended that the charge sheet was filed against the driver of the Tum Tum vehicle and no case was registered against the Tractor and Trailer Unit. He has further contended that there were more than 10 persons traveling in the Tum Tum vehicle in contravention of the provisions of the M.V.Act. Therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation.