( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) is directed against the judgment and award dated 12-12-1994 passed in M. V. C. No. 83 of 1993 by the District Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Madikeri, kodagu.

( 2 ) THE claimants in the M. V. C. case are the appellants herein and are aggrieved by the said judgment and award whereby their claim for compensation as dependents of one Anand N. N. , who died in a motor accident, has been negatived by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the claimants were not able to prove that the driver of the lorry bearing No. CNZ 5126 which was involved in the accident that took place on 2-1-1993 between the lorry and a motor cycle in which the deceased victim was a pillion rider and had suffered injuries at the time of the accident and died later, drove the lorry in question in a rash and negligent manner. The appellants, being aggrieved, are in appeal before this Court.

( 3 ) THE brief facts leading to the above appeal are that, as on 2-1-1993 one Ananda, who was the husband of the first appellant and father of appellants 2 and 3, was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle bearing No. CNZ 1236 belonging to the third respondent at the relevant time; that the motor cycle was being driven by one KM. Chandrakanth, brother of the third respondent, while the accident victim N. N. Anand was his companion on the pillion. The version of the claimants was that when the said motor cycle was moving near Bharathi Estate curve on the highway leading to Somwarpet near Negale Karkalli, the lorry bearing no. CNZ 5126 coming from Somwarpet side at a great speed and in a rash manner, which surprised and shocked the motor cycle rider, who had to swerve suddenly to the extreme left of the road to avoid collision and still the lorry hit the motor cycle, as a result of which the pillion rider fell down to the road and sustained injuries. The pillion rider was shifted to Somwarpet Hospital and he succumbed to the injuries. The fall of the pillion rider resulting in injury leading to his death are attributed to the rash and negligent manner of driving of the lorry and the said Ananda having died, the appellants put forth the claim before the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

( 4 ) THE first respondent in the claim petition was the driver-cum- owner of the lorry; the second respondent was the insurance company which had issued insurance policy in respect of the lorry, and the owner of the lorry, the third respondent, had been impleaded by way of abundant caution.

( 5 ) THE owner-cum-driver of the lorry as well as the insurance company contested the claim. The owner-cum-driver contended that the claim is a false claim; that the compensation amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- claimed in the claim application was highly excessive and exorbitant, the claim petition is not tenable in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the petition is also bad for non-joinder of all the parties etc.

( 6 ) IT appears that the owner-cum-driver of the lorry, the insurance company and the owner of the motor cycle were the respondents in the claim petition initially. However, later on, having regard to the stand that had been taken by the insurance company, the rider of the motor cycle has been impleaded as the respondent during the pendency of the appeal as per order dated 7-5-1998.

( 7 ) THE second respondent-insurance company opposed the claim petition inter alia on the ground that the income of the assessee was not rs. 3,000/- per month; that the allegation of accident being due to the rash and negligent driving by the first respondent, was not admitted and the claimants were put to strict proof of the same; the rider and the insurer of the motor vehicle having not been impleaded, the petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that the claimants were put to strict proof of the fact that the death of the said Ananda was due to the injuries

Click Here to Read the rest of this document