The court emphasized the need for sufficient evidence to establish an insurer's liability based on driver intoxication, ruling that lack of proof resulted in the insurer's responsibility for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

1. These appeals are preferred under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the insurer and the unsatisfied claimant, respectively challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.276/2013, dated 03.05.2017, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge and Member, MACT-VI, Jamakhandi, (for short the ‘Tribunal’).

2. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. The insurer has filed the appeal questioning saddling of liability upon insurance company alleging breach of basic policy condition and the claimant has filed the appeal seeking enhancement of quantum of compensation.

4. Claimant has filed the claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’), seeking compensation for the death of her son-Chandrasekhar in a motor vehicle accident that had taken place on 16.04.2013 at about 02.50 p.m. on Jamkhandi-Banahatti PWD road in front of Town Police Station, Jamkhandi, involving motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/E-5114 and truck bearing registration No.AP-16/TT-3236.

5. The case of claimant in a nutshell is that, when the son of claimant was proceeding towards A.G.Desai Circle on his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-48/E-5114 in front of Jamakhandi Town Police Station, the driver of truck bearing No.AP-16/TT-3236 drove it rashly and negligently without applying brake and blow the horn and dashed the motorcycle from hind side and thereby caused the accident. Due to the accident, son of claimant sustained grievous injuries and while on the way to hospital, he succumbed to those injuries. Claimant further contended that her son was aged about 29 years, doing petty business in Mareguddi village and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month.

6. After service of notice, respondent No.2, the insurer appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement wherein it denied the accident involving the offending vehicle, negligence on the part of driver of the truck and denied all its liability. The insurance Company further took contention that the truck in question had no valid fitness certificate as on the date of accident. The driver was not having valid and effective driving license. The owner and insurer of the motorcycle are also proper and necessary parties to the petition. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition. It also took contention that it will take all the contentions that are available under Section 170 of the Act, if the owner colluded with the petitioner and remain uncontested.

7. On behalf of claimant, claimant was examined as PW.1 apart from marking Exs.P.1 to P.7 before the tribunal and on behalf of respondent No.2, its Administrative Officer was examined as RW.1 apart from marking Exs.R.1 and R.2.

8. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal has passed the judgment and award, awarding total compensation of Rs. 6,32,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit and saddling liability on the insurance holding that the insurer failed to produce evidence to show the owner had knowledge or consented to drive the truck in question.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer has filed appeal on the ground that the driver of the truck in question was in intoxicated state of mind at the time of alleged accident and charge sheet is filed against him alleging the offence under Section 185 of the Act, which itself establish the intoxication against the driver and owner has knowledge about it; hence the basic condition of the insurance policy was violated by the owner and hence, it is not liable to pay compensation.

10. On the other hand, the claimant has filed appeal praying for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is incorrect, the income of the deceased was not taken properly and compensation under other conventional heads were not awarded properly. Henc