The court established that the deceased was not negligent in the accident and recalibrated the income for compensation to Rs.30,000, leading to a total compensation of Rs.43,61,000.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K.B., J.

Both these appeals are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 01.09.2023 passed in MVC No.576/2021 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Dharwad (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. MFA No.104712/2023 is filed by the insurer challenging negligence and quantum of compensation and MFA No.101238/2024 is filed by the claimants praying for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 (1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’).

3. The parties would be referred with their rankings as they were before the Tribunal for convenience and clarity.

4. The claimants who are the mother and unmarried sister of deceased Mahadev have filed the claim petition in respect of accidental death of Mahadev that had taken place on 03.04.2021 at 01.35 p.m. involving car bearing Reg.No.MH-09/BB-1883 and car bearing Reg.No.MH-03/BE-3860 at Ankola-Yallapur road.

5. The case of claimants is that deceased Mahadev was driving the car bearing No.MH-09/BB-1883 and was coming from Dharmastala towards Ankola with his colleagues in that car; at that time, the car bearing No.MH- 03/BE-3860 came from opposite side, dashed against the car and caused the accident, which resulted in the death of Mahadev. It is the contention of claimants that deceased was aged about 26 years, a bright student and was pursuing his PhD, after completion of his Post-graduation in English; he was also teaching English grammar classes and earning Rs..30,000/- per month.

6. It is further contended that the deceased has also passed SET exam, which is a qualifying exam to get appointment at Government Degree College or any Aided Degree College. He was also having agricultural lands and hence claimed compensation.

7. On receipt of notice, respondent No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement, wherein it contended that the accident happened due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased and thus it is not liable to pay compensation. There is no negligence on the driver of car bearing No.MH-03/BE-3860-respondent No.1; further he has violated the insurance policy conditions and driver drove the vehicle carelessly without having effective driving licence. Hence, prayed for dismissal of petition.

8. Respondents No.3 and 4 being the RC holder of car and policy holder of car respectively have admitted the contention taken in the petition and they contended that their vehicle is validly insured with respondent No.5 and hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

9. Respondent No.5 appeared through its counsel and filed objection statement, wherein it has taken contention that the car bearing No.MH-09/BB-1883 was duly insured with it as on the date of accident. Respondents No.3 and 4 have violated the policy conditions and not informed about the accident. There was no negligence on the part of deceased and thus it is not liable to pay compensation.

10. On behalf of claimants, claimant No.2 was examined as P.W.1 apart from examining two witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.44 before the Tribunal. On behalf of respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 are examined apart from marking Exs.R.1 to R.3 before the Tribunal.

11. After recording evidence of both sides and hearing arguments of both sides, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident happened due to rash and negli