JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the legal representatives of the deceased minor challenging the saddling of liability on the respondent No.1/Owner of the offending vehicle as well as seeking enhancement of compensation awarded under judgment & award dated 27.01.2014 passed in MVC No.60/2012 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gadag (for short, ‘Tribunal’).

2. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that on

6.3.2012, deceased Anand was returning from provision store along with his mother by walk by the side of the road, at that time, driver of the tempo trax bearing registration No.KA- 27/9981 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to Anand Gaddi. Due to which, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Laxmeshwar and thereafter to KIMS Hospital Hubli, where he died due to the accidental injuries. It is averred that the claimants spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.12 lakhs.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle entered appearance and filed objections by denying entire claim petition averments including the occurrence of the accident and that the accident has happened due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further averred that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company contested the proceedings by filing statement of objections. It denied the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claim of compensation is subject to terms and conditions of policy. It is also contended that the Fitness Certificate was valid from 8.6.2010 to 8.6.2011, however, as on the date of the accident, Fitness Certificate was not renewed. Therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Hence, sought dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The claimant No.2, father of the deceased Anand, examined himself as PW1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P5. The respondents examined three witnesses as RW1 to RW3 and got marked 8 documents as Ex.D1 to D8. The Tribunal on appreciation of entire material available on record, allowed the claim petition in part awarding total compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization and further directed respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle to pay compensation by dismissing the claim petition against respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the award of compensation as well as direction to the owner of offending vehicle to pay compensation, the claimants are before this Court in this appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Harish S Maigur for the appellants/claimants and Sri.Madhukeshwar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. 6. Learned counsel Sri.Harish S Maigur for the appellants/claimants would submit that the Tribunal committed an error in directing respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award on the ground that at the time of the accident, the offending vehicle was not having valid fitness certificate. In support of the said contention, he places reliance on decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kumara &

Others1. It is further submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in awarding global compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-, which is contrary to the settled principles of law. Learned counsel for the appellants places reliance on decision of this Court in MFA No.101257/2019 disposed off on 29.02.2024 and submits that the appellants may be awarded just and reasonable compensation taking note of the aforesaid judgment of this Court in MFA No.101257/2019.

7. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Madhukeshwar Deshpande for respondent/Insurance Company supporting the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal would submit that ad