The absence of credible evidence proving vehicle involvement in an accident negates claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

CM Joshi, J.

Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act, in MVC No.126/2015 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and MACT, Humnabad, the petitioners have approached this Court in appeal.

2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for both the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that on 12.11.2014, the deceased Veeresh along with his friends and one Sandeep Kumar went on the motorcycle to go to Hyderabad. The deceased Veeresh was rider of the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-51/R-4852 and Sandeep Kumar was the pillion rider. His friend and another went on another motorcycle. It was contended that near Khaja Factory on Gulbarga-Humnabad road at about 10.30 a.m. the rider of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32/K-4731, its rider Mallikarjun drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the rear side of the motorcycle of the deceased resulting in his fall and head injury and Veeresh died on the spot. The petitioners contended that the deceased Veeresh was bachelor aged about 29 years working as a Manager in Ayyappa Road Lines and earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 being the parents and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 being the sisters were depending on the income of the deceased and therefore they are entitled for the compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-32/K-4731. The respondent No.1 was the owner of the said vehicle and respondent No.2-Insurance Company being the insurer are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

4. After service of notice, the respondent No.2- Insurance Company appeared before the tribunal and resisted the petition contending that no such accident had taken place as alleged by the petitioners. However, it alleged that the petitioners have colluded with the police and have cooked up a false case against the respondents. It contended that the said motorcycle has been falsely implicated in this case in order to make unlawful gain, inter-alia, denying the age, income and occupation of the deceased and contended that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues;

1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Veeresh died in the accident dated 12.11.2014 at about 10.30 p.m. near Khaja company, on Humanbad-Gulbarga road within the limits of Humnabad police station, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle Hero Honda bearing Reg. No.KA32/ K-4731 by its driver.

2. Whether the claimants prove that the deceased was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from his Manager work, in Ayyappa road line and was having an age of 29 years at the time of accident?

3. Whether the respondent proves that the amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant and excessive one?

4. Whether the claimants are entitled for any compensation? If so how much?

5. What order or award?

6. The pe