JUDGMENT

MFA No.7048/2018 is filed by the Insurance Company and MFA CROB No. 96/2020 is filed by the claimants against the judgment in MVC No.683/2015 passed by the Judge, Additional Court of Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge and Presiding Officer, MACT, Mysore.

2. By the impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.11,41,000/- as compensation and directed the insurance company to deposit the same.

3. Brief facts of the case:

On 11.03.2015 at about 9.10 p.m. the son of petitioners by name Santhosh S while proceeding on his motor bike from Kushalnagar towards his village and Shayam Cement shop of Koppa village, Periyapatna Taluk, a lorry bearing Reg. No. KA 53 3596 was negligently parked in the middle of the road without any signal or indicator. The said Santhosh who was riding the motor cycle tried to pass the lorry, a car having come from the opposite direction, he was blinded and he could not see the lorry which is parked without any signal and dashed against the said lorry and as a result, he fell down and sustained head injuries. Immediately, he was taken to Government Hospital, Kushalnagar, wherein he was declared dead.

4. The petitioners who are the parents and dependents of deceased Santhosh S, contended that the accident was due to the negligence on the part of the lorry driver as he had parked the same covering the entire left lane of the road without placing any indicator that the said lorry is parked. They were totally dependent on the deceased. It was also contended by the petitioners that deceased Santhosh S was hale and healthy prior to the accident and was working as a coolie and undertaking contract work of stone crushing and thereby earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. Therefore, they filed a claim petition seeking compensation from the respondents who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

5. On issuance of notice, the respondent Nos. 1 and

2 who are the driver and owner of the lorry remained absent and they were placed exparte. The respondent No. 3-Insurance Company has appeared through its counsel and filed objections.

6. The respondent No. 3 in its objections has denied the entire averments of the petition and contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioners is highly exorbitant, imaginary and untenable and that there was violations of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore, the petition is liable to be rejected. It further denied that the driver of the lorry was having any driving licence, fitness certificate etc., and therefore, the liability has to be fastened upon the owner of the lorry.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed necessary issues and the petitioner No.2 was examined as PW1 and one witness was examined as PW2 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. Respondent No.3 examined its official as RW1 and Exs.R1 and 2 were marked.

8. After hearing the arguments by both the sides, the Tribunal allowed the petition and awarded a sum of Rs.11,41,000/- as compensation under different heads as below:

9. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award, Insurance Company has approached this Court in MFA No.7048/2018 contending that the Tribunal has not considered the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased. It contended that the deceased had dashed against the parked lorry from behind and therefore, the contributory negligence should have been considered. It contended that the deceased was not wearing helmet and was not possessing the driving license. Therefore, the negligence on the part of the deceased should have been considered by the Tribunal and as such, the impugned judgment is erroneous.

10. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the claimants have also approached