MANGALI VENKATESH Vs. SHAIK MASTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant who is the son of M. Laxmamma (the deceased) who died while travelling in a car due to an accident said to have been caused by a lorry belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) seeking compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- from the respondents on the ground the deceased aged about 45 years was earning Rs.6,323/- per month. First respondent chose to remain ex parte. Second respondent filed its counter putting the appellant to proof of the averments in the petition. The claim petition filed by the appellant and some other claim petitions filed by some other legal representatives of the victims of the same accident were clubbed and common evidence was recorded.

(2.) In support of the case of the claimants in all the claim petitions, two witnesses were examined as P. Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A. 1 to A. 10 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced by the second respondent but Ex.B.1 was marked by consent on his behalf. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry belonging to the first respondent and awarded Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation to the appellant. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the claimant preferred this appeal.

(3.) Though from the facts and circumstances of the case, since the accident seems to have occurred on a 60' wide road due to a head on collision between the car in which the deceased was travelling and the lorry belonging to the first respondent, the possibility of the accident occurring due to the negligent driving of the car, does not seem to have taken into consideration by the Tribunal, I do not wish to interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal as to how the accident took place because the second respondent did not think it fit to file an appeal after obtaining permission under Section 170 of the Act.