ON

24.08.2022,

COMING ON FOR 8PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT9 THIS

DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

The MFA No.9117/2018 is filed under Section

173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 8MV Act9)

and MFA CROB No.48/2019 is filed under Order 41 Rule

22 of CPC read with Section 173(1) of MV Act,

challenging the judgment and award dated 18.08.2018

passed by the VII Additional Small Causes Judge and

XXXII ACMM, Court of Small Causes Court and MACT-

III, Bengaluru (for short, 8Tribunal9).

For the sake of convenience, the parties

herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by

them before the Tribunal.

5

MFA No.9117/2018 is filed by the Insurance

Company challenging the liability, while MFA-CROB

No.48/2019

is

filed

by

the

claimants

seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

The brief factual matrix leading to the case is

that, on 04.06.2017 the deceased Sudhakar Babu, after

completing his work at Bengaluru was proceeding to his

residence in Jangamakote by driving Autorikshaw

bearing No.KA.53.A.8128 and at about 2.00 a.m. when

he reached near Kurubarakunte Forest Farm, a Lorry

bearing No. KA.41.A.4095, was moving in front of his

Autorikshaw, with high speed and in rash and negligent

manner and suddenly the driver of the lorry without

giving any signal or indication, applied break in the

middle of the road, as a result, the Autorikshaw dashed

to the lorry and the Autorikshaw turtle down and badly

damaged. The deceased Sudhakar Babu sustained fatal

injuries and immediately he was shifted to Vijayapura

Government Hospital and thereafter, he was shifted to

NIMHANS at Bengaluru, wherein he succumbed because

of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. It

6

is also asserted that the deceased was aged about 38

years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by running

Autorikshaw. Due to the death of the deceased, the

claimants being the widow, minor children and parents

of the deceased have lost the bread-earner in the

family. According to the claimants, the accident in

question is caused because of actionable negligence on

the part of the driver of the offending lorry. Respondent

No.1 is the owner and Respondent No.2 is the Insurer

of the offending lorry. Hence, the claimants have filed

claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act,

claiming compensation of Rs.40.00 Lakhs.

The

respondents

have

put-in

their

appearance before the Tribunal and denied the mode,

occurrence and manner of accident as alleged, including

the age, occupation and income of the deceased. It is

contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was

driving the lorry carefully by observing traffic rules and

the deceased did not possess the valid and effective

Driving Licence, and he drove the Autorikshaw in rash

and negligent manner and dashed to the lorry moving

7

ahead, and on these grounds, they disputed the liability.

Respondent

No.2/Insurance

Company

though

has

admitted the coverage of insurance of the offending

vehicle, has contended that, the coverage of liability is

subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence,

respondents have sought for dismissal of the claim

petition.

The Tribunal after assessing the oral as well

as documentary evidence, has awarded compensation of

Rs,15,82,000/- with interest at 8% per annum from the

date of petition till realization, by fastening liability on

respondents No.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Being

aggrieved by this judgment and award, the Insurance

Company has filed MFA No.9117/2018 challenging the

liability as well as quantum of compensation, while MFA

CROB No.48/2019 is filed by the claimants seeking

enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

Heard the learned counsels appearing for the

claimants as well as Insurance Company. Perused the

records.

8

8.

Learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance

Company would contend that, considering the evidence

of PW.2, who claims to be an eyewitness to the accident

that, the Autorikshaw was moving at a di