The court reaffirmed that compensation for wrongful death should consider future earnings and dependents' needs, holding the insurer liable for the accident despite technical defenses.

JUDGMENT :

T.M. NADAF, J.

These two appeals being MFA.No.3562/2023 and MFA.No.6032/2023 are by the Insurer as well as claimant, calling in question the judgment and award dated 27.09.2022 in MVC.No.547/2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mysuru [‘Tribunal’ for short]. The Insurer is on the ground of liability and quantum, and the claimant seeks enhancement.

2. Heard Ms.Geetha Raj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. Shantharaj. K, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Though Notice to respondent No.5 in MFA No.3562/2023 is served, but unrepresented. The Notice to this respondent in MFA.No.6032/2023 [the respondent No.1] is dispensed with vide order dated 05.09.2023.

3. Ms. Geetha Raj on four counts has placed her arguments:

(i) Complainant was not cited as witness to substantiate the claim of the claimants.

(ii) Witness No.2, Prashanth Kumar, is a stock witness with the police.

(iii) Though PW-2 has given evidence in the claim petition in favour of the claimant, on the manner of accident alleging the involvement of vehicle and the reason for the accident, but in the criminal case, completely turned hostile deposing that he did not see any accident. In the absence of any materials, except the statement of Prashanth Kumar, the police in collusion filed charge sheet by implicating the vehicle of the insurer, though the owner of the insurer appeared, filed statement of objection and led his evidence as well as the evidence of the driver of the lorry involved in the accident against the facts narrated by the eye witness.

(iv) As per the statement of PW-2 Prashanth Kumar, the accident had occurred at 05.45 p.m. on 26.04.2017. However, as per the records, placed by the insured the vehicle left Sowkur Durgaparameswari Poultry Farm at 06.00 p.m. in the evening and reached Mangaluru.

Ms. Geetha further submits that as per the evidence of owner as well as driver of the lorry, the lorry was transporting 11 Tonnes of eggs from Sowkur Durgaparameswari Poultry Farm, owned by the insured and reached the destination i.e, Mangaluru safely without any damages. If the contentions of PW-2, are taken as it is which assumes importance in the matter, the reason being the witness has stated that the driver of lorry has driven the lorry in a zig- zag manner and not the motorcycle, when trying to overtake it and then dashed against road divider and stopped. If that is to be considered, there must be damages to the goods contained in the lorry owing to the nature of goods i.e., eggs. However, the entire load was safely transported to the Mangaluru destination. In these circumstances, in view of admissions by the witness PW-2 that, he had earlier given complaint in respect of other accidental cases with the police and also given evidence before the Court, pellucidly shows that the witness is a stock witness with the police and his case is a pure case of implantation of vehicle. With this Madam Geetha sought to allow the appeal and exonerate the insurer, holding that the offending lorry is not at all involved in the accident.

4. In contrast to these submissions, Sri.Shantharaj, submits that the evidence in terms of Indian Evidence Act, be read as a whole and not in isolation. The claimants have examined, apart from an eyewitness [PW-2] the Investigating Officer, who has registered the case and conducted initial investigation. This witness is examined as PW-3, and who has handed over further investigation to RW-3.

5. RW-3 who has filed charge sheet, against the driver of the lorry for causing the accident due to his actionable negli