The court upheld the negligence finding, rejected permit violation, and adjusted the compensation based on income and loss of consortium.

JUDGMENT

Narendra Prasad, J. - Mfa Nos.3402/2016 and 3403/2016 are filed by the insurance company challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.2260/2013 dated 09.12.2015 on the file of MACT, Bengaluru and MVC No.1090/2013 dated 18.04.2015 on the file of the MACT at Hassan, respectively, whereas MFA Nos.426/2016 and 9787/2017 are filed by the claimants in MVC No.2260/2013 under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act , for short). Since, all the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeals briefly stated are that on 02.01.2013 the deceased persons B.J.Vinay, H.R.Srinivas and Janardhan were proceeding in a car bearing registration No.KA-02/MC- 4174 on Tirupati - Bangalore by-pass road. When they reached near Gandlakothur village, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor district, Andhra Pradesh the lorry bearing registration No.KA-19/C-2163 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the opposite coming car. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the deceased persons sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act on the ground that the deceased were aged about 29 years and 35 years, respectively, at the time of accident and were running bakery and were earning Rs.5,99,902/- per annum and Rs.50,000/- per month, respectively. The claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.4,20,00,000/- and Rs.50,00,000/- respectively along with interest.

In MVC No.2260/2013:

4. On service of summons, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded by respondent Nos.1 to 3 that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. It was pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the driver and owner of the car are not made as parties to the petition and the claimants have filed a false complaint with the collusion of the police for the wrongful gain. It was pleaded by the respondent No.3 that the liability, if any, is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It was pleaded by the respondent No.4that the accident took place due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry alone and on investigation the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. It was further pleaded by respondent Nos. 1 to 4that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

In MVC No.1090/2013:

5. On service of summons, the respondent No.2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement in which the averments made in the petition were denied. It was pleaded that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver. It was further pleaded that the police had lodged a false complaint in respect of the accident to help the claimants to grab the compensation illegally from the respondents. It was further pleaded that the driver of the car was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the car and he himself is responsible for the accident. It was further pleaded that the driver of the offending lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It was further pleaded that the quantum of compensation claimed by the claimants is exorbitant. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. In MVC No.2260/2013, the claimants, in order to prove their case, examined claimant No.1 wife of the deceased as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P16. On behalf of respondents, five witnesses were examined as RW-1 to RW-5 and got exhibited documents