( 1 ) THE above miscellanous first appeal is directed against the judgment and award passed by the District Judge Chitradurge in M. V. C. . No. 12 of 1971 dated 5-11-1976 fixing the liability of the insurer at Rs. 10,000/- out of the total compensation of Rs. 25. 048/- and the owner of the vehicle bearing no. MYT 3887 for payment of the balance amount to respondents 1 to 4.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the owner of the lorry bearing No. MYT 3887. Respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants. Respondent-5 is the insurer. Respondent-6 is the driver.

( 3 ) THE claimants instituted a patition before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal at Chitradurga, claiming compensation of a lakh of rupees for death of one Mohamed Ameer, the husband of the 1st claimant and father of respondents 2 to 4, arising out of the motor accident which took place on 13-3-1971, when he (deceased) was travelling in the said goods vehicle from Davanagere to Hiriyur with his goods loaded in the said vehicle. Facts of the case are that Mohammed Ameer was travelling from davanagere to Harihar with his goods loaded in the vehicle MYT 3887. At 101|2 mile stone near Vanivilasa Sagar Mills, Hiriyur town, the lorry dashed against another vehicle bearing No. HMT 2672, which was packed for some repairs, as a result of which Mohammed Ameer sustained injuries. He was removed to Hiriyur Hospital and from there, he was removed to the Hospital at Chitradurga in a car where he succumbed to the injuries. According to the claimants the death was due to the rash and negligent driving by the 6th respondent.

( 4 ) THE owner and the driver in their written statements have denied the facts of the deceased travelling in their vehicle by paying charges. They denied that the alleged accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the Gth respondent.

( 5 ) THE insurer by its written statement denied the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver and the accident was of the. case of a 'vis Major'. It pleaded that there is no statutory obligation to insure the risk resulting to persons travelling in goods vehicles and that there is no coverage of insurance relating to the, deceased person. Further, it was averred that there was no coverage of insurance for non-fare paying passengers.

( 6 ) UPON these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Claims tribunal (1) Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased died in an accident near Vani Vilas Sugar Mills on Bangalore-Dharwar road, when he he was travelling in vehicle No. MYT 3887? (2) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of vehicle No. MYT 3887? (3) Whether the petitioners prove that they are heirs to the deceased? (4) Whether they prove that the deceased was aged, 35 years and a merchant with an income of Rs. 300/- per month? (5) Whether they prove that they are entitled to the quantum of damage claimed (6) What order?the claimants examined seven witnesses in support of their case. No defence witness was examined on behalf of the respondents.

( 7 ) THE Claims Tribunal upon consideration of the evidence on record found that Mohammed Ameer died due to the motor accident in which vehicle NO. MYT 3887 was involved and held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. It further held that the claimants were the heirs of the deceased that the income of the deceased was Rs. 150/- per month, and that the claimants were entitled to the compensation. In that view of the matter, it awarded compensation of rs. 25,048/- payable by the owner and the driver. It held that the insurer was not liable for payment of any compensation.

( 8 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and award the present appellnt-owner filed miscellanous first appeal No. 333 of 1976 challenging the order of the Claims Tribunal for exonerating and not holding the Insurer liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The otheir findings were not challenged in that appeal.

( 9 ) A Division Bench of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document