IMPORTANT POINT
A possible view taken by court below could not be disturbed, that too in a casual manner.

JUDGMENT

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.

1. This appeal emanates from the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 9th July, 2015 in M.F.A. No.4401/2008 (MV) which had allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 (Insurance Company) and set aside the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”) granting compensation to the appellants.

2. A claim petition was filed in reference to the death of one Chanabasayya Sidramayya Hiremath, son of appellant No.1 and brother of appellant No.2 herein. On 23rd January, 2001, the deceased was returning, after unloading food-grains, on tractor-trailer bearing No. KA-29/T-1651/T-1652 belonging to respondent No.2, and being driven by an employee of respondent No.2, one Mallikarjuna Beemappa Ganiger. At around 1.00 AM, it is alleged that owing to the rash and negligent driving of the said Mallikarjuna Beemappa Ganiger, the deceased fell off the tractor-trailer and suffered fatal injuries. A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was subsequently filed before the Tribunal, Bagalkot, by the legal representatives of the deceased seeking compensation of Rs. 8 lakh from respondent No.1 - insurance company, respondent No.2 - owner and the driver, Mallikarjuna Beemappa Ganiger. After considering the facts and evidence on record, the Tribunal rejected the respondents’ contention that the deceased had himself been negligent by standing on a tractor hook which connected the tractor and the trailer and concluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle. The Tribunal, thus, passed an award against the respondents, jointly and severally, to compensate the family members of the deceased with a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees three lakh twenty thousand only) with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, from 3.7.2001 to 29.4.2003 and from 11.7.2007 till date of realisation of the award amount.

3. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 insurance company assailed the Tribunal’s award before the High Court of Karnataka, contending that the deceased had not travelled along with his goods in the tractor-trailer and therefore, it could not be made liable to pay any compensation. The High Court found merit in the contention raised by respondent No.1, that the deceased was not travelling along with his goods at the time of the accident and thus held that respondent No.1 insurance company could not be saddled with any liability in that regard.

4. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment including on the ground that the High Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the fact that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family without whom, the family had no other source of income. The appellants also submit that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was meager and unjustifiable and therefore, also seek enhancement of the Tribunal’s award.

5. We have heard Mr. Sharanagouda Patil, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Meenakshi Midha, learned counsel for the respondents. Be it noted, the driver of the offending vehicle has not been arrayed as a party either before the High Court or before this Court and the claim of the appellants is only against respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and the respondent No.2 – owner of the vehicle.

6. The High Court has held that the insurer (respondent No.1) cannot be saddled with the liability to satisfy the award and on that finding, allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.1. The reason which weighed with the High Court for arriving at that conclusion, as can be discerned from the impugned judgment, is based on the selective reading of evidence of PW-2 (eye-witness) who had stated that the deceased was standing on the hook connecting the tractor and trailer and the deceased fell down due to rash driving of the tractor, which ran over his head and chest. The High Court has also selectively adverted to the evidence of PW-1, mother of the deceased and opined that