The insurance company is liable to pay compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

B. Veerappa, J.

The claimants i.e., father, mother, wife and children of the deceased Ramegowda filed the present appeal against the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal dated 04.01.2014 made in MVC No.114/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & MACT, K.R.Pet awarding total compensation of Rs.9,72,500/-with future interest at 8% per annum. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent No.1-the owner of the vehicle and dismissing the claim petition filed against respondent No.2-the insurance company and dismissing the claim petition filed by claimant Nos.1 and 4 i.e., father and major daughter of the deceased respectively.

2. It is the case of the claimants, who filed the claim petition under the provision of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation of Rs.30,77,000/-with future interest, that on 13.02.2009,when the deceased along with the villagers were coming back to Murukanahalli village in the Bullock cart on K.R.Pet-Mysore road near forest land at 9.30 a.m., lorry bearing registration No.KA-10/2365 came from the back side in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Bullock Cart. Due to the said impact, Ramegowda and other two villagers sustained multiple grievous injuries to several vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, Ramegowda and his villagers were shifted to Government Hospital, K.R.Pet for first aid treatment. Thereafter, Ramegowda was referred to major high-tech hospital but, he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The post mortem was conducted at K.R.Pet Government Hospital. It is further contended that the deceased was hale and healthy at the time of the accident and he was experienced agriculturist, milk vendor/dairy farmer and in addition to this, he is a reputed Areca-nut businessmen in profession. The deceased was hard worker, he was growing commercial crops like Banana, Areca-nut, coconut, sugarcane etc. in a vast extent of about more than 15 acres of wet and garden lands and he was earning a sum of Rs.20,000/-per month. These were the main sources of his earning to lead his family. Therefore, sought for compensation as prayed for.

3. In spite of service of notice, respondent No.1-the owner of the offending vehicle has not appeared before the Court. Hence, he was placed ex-parte.

4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed the written statement denying all the allegations and contended that lorry bearing registration No.KA-10/2365 was duly insured as on the date of the accident but, liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The driver of lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and sought to dismiss of the claim petition.

5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed three points for consideration, which are as under:

1) Whether the petitioners prove that the accident on 13.02.2009 at about 9.30 a.m. on K.R.Pet-Mysore high way the deceased Ramegowda died due to the rash and negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No.KA-10/2365 by its driver?

2) Whether the 2nd respondent proves that the driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.KA-10/2365 did not possess a valid and effective driving license to drive the particular type of the vehicle as on the date of the accident?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation? If so? What extent and from whom?”

6. In order to prove their case, the claimants examined claimant No.3-the wife of the deceased as PW.1 and one Jayamarinayaka, an eyewitness as PW.2 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. On behalf of the respondents, One K.Satish Chandru was examined as RW.1 and got marked Ex.R1-charge sheet.

7. The Tribunal, considering both oral and documentary evidence on record,