In motor vehicle compensation cases, prima facie evidence such as a charge sheet can establish vehicle involvement, and the burden of proof lies with the claimants to show negligence.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

Respondent No.2-insurer has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and award dated 16.08.2011 passed in MVC.No.1206/2010 by the MACT and District Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chikodi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’).

2. Claimants – respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed the petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act praying to award compensation for the death of one Ashok. The Tribunal after trial, awarded compensation by the impugned award and the same is challenged by the insurer in the present appeal.

3. I refer to the parties as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that the deceased – Ashok was the husband of petitioner No.1, father of petitioner No.2 and son of petitioner No.3. On 11.08.2009, Ashok met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA- 22-1253 as a result of which Ashok sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to injury. It was also contended that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as a contractor and he was aged about 38 years at the time of the accident. With these reasons, prayed to award compensation of Rs.10 lakhs.

5. The owner of the vehicle remained absent though notice was duly served. The insurer – respondent No.2 appeared and filed the written statement denying the contention of the claim petitioners and it has specifically contended that the said vehicle was falsely implicated in this case to get the compensation. It also denied its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. With these reasons prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. The Tribunal framed necessary issues.

7. The claimants to prove their case examined petitioner No.3 as PW-1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. Respondents have got marked the copy of the policy as Ex.R1. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties held that the accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.KA- 22-1253 by its driver and the said Ashok died in the accident. The Tribunal awarded total amount of compensation of Rs.5,85,112/- along with 9% interest per annum, under following heads:

8. The appellant challenged the impugned award mainly on two grounds. One is the offending lorry was falsely implicated in this case and there are no materials to show that the accident was caused by the negligent driving of the said vehicle. The claimants did not examine the material witness to connect the said lorry with the accident. PW-1 is not an eye witness. The investigating officer has not been examined by the claimants. In the absence of the material evidence, connecting the lorry with the accident, the Tribunal erroneously held that the accident was caused due to negligence of the driver of the lorry. The author of Ex.P10 and P11 i.e witnesses who have stated before the investigating officer about the involvement of the lorry were not examined. Hence involvement of lorry is not proved.

9. The 2^nd ground of attack that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the higher side and even the interest awarded is @ 9% per annum, that is also much higher side. On these two grounds, respondent No.2 has challenged the impugned judgment.

10. The learned Advocate for appellants submits that the Tribunal appreciating the evidence of PW1 and charge sheet filed against the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.KA-22-1253, held that accident had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. But PW-1 is not an eye witness. One Baba Saheba Shivappa Kengare of Neja village, Chikodi Taluk and Ravasaaba Tukarama Ladakarni are said to be the witnesses to the accide