CAV JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging liability and quantum under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short ‘MV Act’) seeking to set aside the judgment and award dated 08.06.2017 passed in MVC No.1346/2016, on the file of the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi (herein after referred to as ‘the Tribunal’ for short).

2. The appellant herein-Insurance Company is the respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, respondents No.1 to 5 herein are the petitioners/claimants No.1 to 5 before the Tribunal and the respondent No.6 herein-Owner of the vehicle is the respondent No.1 before the Tribunal.

3. For convenience of reference, the parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal.

4. The claim petition was filed under section 163-A of the MV Act claiming compensation for the death of Sri Prakash Baburao Chigare due to the injuries sustained in an accident.

5. The brief facts of the case are as under:

On 01.08.2014 at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased, Sri Prakash Baburao Chigare, was returning from his work to his residence on his motorcycle bearing No. KA-22/EF-3766. When he reached near Arun Talkies on Congress Road, Tilakwadi, Belagavi, in front of a sugarcane juice centre, an unknown vehicle came from behind at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motorcycle, resulting in an accident. Due to the impact, the deceased fell down, sustained severe head injuries and injuries to other parts of the body, and he became unconscious at the spot. He was immediately shifted to BIMS Hospital, Belagavi, and thereafter, on reference, shifted to KLE Hospital, Belagavi, where he underwent treatment and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 04.08.2014. It was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the unknown car, and that the deceased was hale and healthy, earning Rs.40,000/- per annum, and was maintaining the entire family.

6. After service of notice, respondent No.2, the Insurance Company filed objections denying all the allegations and claims made by the claimants and contended that the accident was not caused due to the involvement of any vehicle and that the deceased died due to his own negligence. It was further contended that there was violation of the policy conditions on the part of respondent No.1-owner of the vehicle and, therefore, respondent No.2 was not liable to indemnify the liability of respondent No.1. Since the death of Sri Prakash Baburao Chigare was due to self-negligence, the claimants were not entitled to any compensation.

7. In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, the petitioner/claimant No.1 got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked documents at Exs.P1 to P35. On the other hand, respondents No.1 to 3 examined themselves as RW-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.R1 to Ex.R3.

8. On the basis of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal framed issue and partly allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.4,24,505/- with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization by fastening the liability on the Insurance Company.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has failed to consider the defence raised by the appellant in its proper perspective in fastening liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs.4,24,505/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

10. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought not to have entertained and allowed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the MV Act, as the same was not maintainable under the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, the delay in lodging the police complaint, coupled with the absence of any medico-legal case registration at the hospital where the deceased was initially treated, has not been properly appreciated by the Tribunal.

11. It is also contended that the Tribunal has failed to co