The claimants failed to prove the involvement of the Canter lorry in the accident, necessitating dismissal of their claim for compensation.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

1. These are appeals filed by the owner, claimants and insurer, respectively, under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act), challenging the judgment and award passed in MVC No.465/2016, dated 14.08.2019, on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Ranebennur (for short, the Tribunal).

2. The owner has challenged the judgment and award insofar as direction issued to insurer to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the owner. The claimants have filed the appeal being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation amount awarded by the tribunal. Insurer has filed the appeal challenging the liability and quantum, contending that the vehicle in question is not involved in the alleged accident.

3. The parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the tribunal, for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. The claimants being the wife, children and mother of deceased have filed the claim petition under section 166 of the Act, contending that husband of claimant No.1, Hasanpeer U.K. S/o.Kasimsab, died in a road traffic accident that occurred on 25.08.2014, involving goods lorry bearing registration No.KA-14/A-2930 and KA-16/A-2266. The contention of claimants is that husband of claimant No.1 was driver cum owner of the goods lorry bearing registration No.KA-14/A-2930 and they have stopped the vehicle due to mechanical defect near Hanchinasiddapur village on Shivamogga-Channagiri road by the side of the road by putting indicator lights and Hasanpeer has informed mechanic over phone who was coming from Shivamogga to the spot; at that time deceased-Hasanpeer, Allabaksha and Rudresh were standing behind the lorry and waiting for mechanic, at about 22.45 hours, a Canter lorry came from Shivamogga side, to the extreme left side without observing that the persons were standing by the side of road and dashed against Hasanpeer, Allabaksh and also damaged the lorry of Hasanpeer. The driver of Canter lorry escaped from the spot. In that accident both Hasanpeer and Allabaksh were injured and they could not make out the vehicle number due to darkness. Immediately Hassanpeer was shifted to District Hospital, Shivamogga and then cleaner - Allabaksh was shifted to Government Hospital, Channagiri in an ambulance. Hasanpeer succumbed to injuries on next day morning at 06.00 a.m.

5. Claimants would contend that Hasanpeer was working as driver, owned the lorry and he is the only earning member of the family and was getting income of Rs. 3,000-4,000 per day. They contended that the Canter lorry, which caused the accident bearing registration No.KA-16/A-2266 belongs to respondent No.1 and it is validly insured with respondent No.2 and policy was in force as on the date of accident.

6. On service of notice, respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed its objection statement, wherein it denied the petition averments in toto. Respondent No.2 took contention that the driver of said Canter lorry was not holding valid driving licence as on the date of accident and thus, respondent No.1 has violated the first and foremost condition of the policy by allowing an unauthorised person to drive and thus, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. It further took contention that Channagiri Police have filed charge sheet against the driver alleging the offences punishable under Section 3 read with section 181 of M.V. Act and have filed charge sheet against owner under Section 4 read with section 180 of M.V. Act and thus, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation. This is a hit and run case