AND

AWARD

DATED

04/04/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1699/2017, ON THE

FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING

COMPENSATION OF RS.9,71,000/- WITH INTEREST AT

3

6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION TILL THE

DATE OF REALISATION.

IN MFA NO.5887/2019

W/O LATE PUSHPARAJ,

R/AT HALUVAGILU ROAD,

TANNIRUHALLI,

CHIKKAMANDIGANAHALLI,

HASSAN.

4

W/O LATE RAJU,

R/AT NO.21A, 1ST CROSS,

S/O. SURENDRA, 18TH CROSS,

(BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADARE, ADVOCATE FOR R1

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 SERVED BUT

UNREPRESENTED)

JUDGMENT

AND

AWARD

DATED

04/04/2019, PASSED IN MVC NO.1700/2017, ON THE

FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE & ADDITIONAL MACT, HASSAN, AWARDING

COMPENSATION OF RS.1,30,000/- ALONG WITH

INTEREST AT 6% P.A., FROM THE DATE OF PETITION

TILL THE DATE OF REALISATION.

THESE MFAs COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,

THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

MFA No.5886/2019 and MFA No.5887/2019 are

filed by the Insurance Company under Section under

5

Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

(hereinafter referred to as 8the Act9, for short), being

aggrieved by the judgment dated 04.04.2019, passed

by the II Additional District & Sessions Court &

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hassan in

MVC No.1699/2017 and MVC No.1700/2017.

Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal

briefly stated are that on 02.04.2017, at about 3.00

p.m., the claimant Smt. Chandrakala and her husband

deceased Pushparaj were proceeding in a car, bearing

registration No.KA.51.MD.3870 on NH-75 B.M. Road.

When they reached near family restaurant situated

near Ranganathapur gate, at that time, the driver of

the said car, drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner and lost control, due to that the car was rolled

3 times on the side of the road. As a result of the

aforesaid accident, they sustained grievous injuries

and claimant's husband succumbed to the injuries.

6

The claimants filed petitions under Section

166 of the Act seeking compensation for the death of

the deceased along with interest.

On service of summons, the respondent

No.3 appeared through counsel and filed written

statement in which the averments made in the

petition were denied.

The respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not appear

before the Tribunal inspite of service of notice and

hence were placed ex-parte.

5.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties,

the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter

recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to

prove their case in MVC No.1699/2017 and MVC

No.1700/2017, examined claimant No.1 Chandrakala

as PW-1 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1

to Ex.P11. On behalf of respondents, one witness was

7

examined as RW-1 and got exhibited document

namely Ex.R1. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned

judgment, inter alia, held that the accident took place

on account of rash and negligent driving of the

offending vehicle by its driver, as a result of which,

the claimant sustained injuries and her husband

sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The

Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to

a

compensation

of

Rs.9,71,000/-

in

MVC

No.1699/2017

and

Rs.1,30,000/-

in

MVC

No.1700/2017 along with interest at the rate of 6%

p.a. and directed the Insurance Company to deposit

the compensation amount along with interest. Being

aggrieved, this appeal has been filed.

6.

The learned counsel for the Insurance

company has contended that the policy issued by the

Insurance Company for the private car is a 'liability

only policy'. There is no additional premium collected.

8

Since, the deceased in MVC No.1699/2017 and the

claimant in MVC No.1700/2017 are the inmates of the

car, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any

compensation. Even though the policy has been

marked as Ex-R1, the Tribunal has given a finding that

no policy has been produced. This finding of the

Tribunal is perverse and contrary to the material

available on record. In support