The court emphasized the importance of considering medical evidence in motor accident claims and the duty of the Tribunal to thoroughly evaluate the evidence presented.

JUDGMENT

K.S.HEMALEKHA,J. - The present appeal is preferred by the claimants assailing the judgment and award dtd. 15/12/2011, in MVC. No.281/2010 on the file of the XII Additional Small Causes Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal" for the sake of convenience) whereby, the claim petition filed by the claimants was dismissed by the Tribunal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed the claim petition on account of death of one Sri. Annaiah @ Annaiah Naik succumbed to the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident that occurred on 29/1/2019, when the deceased was traveling as a coolie labors in the tractor-trailer bearing registration No.KA-18-T-7577-7578, the driver of the tractor-trailer having driven the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and due to the speed, lost control over the said vehicle and as a result, the trailer turned turtle upside down on the injuries. Due to the impact of the accident, deceased Annaiah sustained injuries and one Bhaskar succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, the injured Annaiah was taken to General hospital, Tarikere and after receiving first aid treatment, was shifted to Nanjappa Hospital, Shimogga, wherein he was inpatient for a period of six days and was referred to Victoria Hospital, Bengaluru on 5/2/2009 and after necessary treatment, he was admitted to Kasturba Hospital, Manipal. According to the claimants, the deceased Annaiah was inpatient therein and thereafter, he underwent surgery and was discharged. After follow up treatment, he was readmitted for further treatment in the very same hospital at Manipal from 28/5/2009 to 28/6/2009 as inpatient. According to the claimants, though best treatment was given to Annaiah, he succumbed to the injuries on 15/8/2009 at around 8.00 a.m. in his residence. The deceased was aged about 32 years and was doing coolie work and earning Rs.6,000.00 per month and the claimants are wife, children and parents of the deceased were depending upon the income of the deceased and lost the sole earning member of the family and sought for compensation.

3. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2-insurance company appeared and filed their separate written statement.

4. Respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle denied the entire averments made in the claim petition and contended that the tractor-trailer was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company and was having valid insurance policy as on the date of the accident and thereby, respondent No.2 is liable to answer the claim of the claimants indemnifying respondent No.1.

5. Respondent No.2-insurance company has filed written statement denying the relationship of the claimants with the deceased, age, avocation and income of the deceased Annaiah @ Annaiah Nayak. The insurance company stated that the owner of the tractor-trailer has entrusted the vehicle to a person who did not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the said class of vehicle as on the date of the accident and the vehicle was used for non-agricultural purpose and thereby, respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the insurance company, deceased was traveling in a tractor-trailer as gratuitous passenger and even the death of said Annaiah was not due to the accidental injuries and as such, sought to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The Tribunal, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the petitioner proves that deceased Annaiah @ Annaiah Naik died in a road traffic accident on 29/1/2009 at about 9.00 a.m. near Gurupura road, Kaladammana Channel Bridge, Gurupura, Lakkavalli Hobli, Tarikere Taluk, Chickmagalur Dist, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor-Trailer bearing No.KA.18.T.7577-78?

2. Whether petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so to what extent and from whom?"

7. In