If a connected claim petition arising from the same accident is allowed by a higher court, establishing the negligence of the offending vehicle, other claimants from the same accident are entitled to compensation based on their specific injuries and income.

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101229 OF 2024 (MV-I)

THIS MFA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 06.02.2018 PASSED IN MVC NO.119/2014 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, U.K.KARWAR, SITTING AT SIRSI, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 166 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 06.02.2018 passed in MVC No.119/2014 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, U.K. Karwar, sitting at Sirsi.

2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

3. On 12.09.2013, the claimant and her husband Parameshwar Hegde were travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-31/S-2969. The claimant was a pillion rider. When they reached near the accident spot, at that time, a vehicle bearing registration No.KA-31/6059 belonging to respondent No.1, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction, and dashed to the motorcycle. As a result, the claimant and her husband sustained grievous injuries. The claimant and her husband filed separate claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. The claim petition filed by claimant is registered as MVC No.119/2014 and the claim petition filed by the husband of the claimant is numbered as MVC No.121/2014.

4. Respondent No.1-owner of the Tata Spacio vehicle bearing registration NO.KA.31/6059 filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the claim petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable either in law or facts. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident and the vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-assurance company and the policy was in force as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1.

5. Respondent No.2-Assurance company filed statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition and admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with it. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as of the date of the accident. Thus, there is violation of the policy conditions. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petitions against the assurance company.

6. The Tribunal based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The claimant to substantiate her case examined herself as PW.1, examined the Doctor as PW.2 and marked 33 documents as Ex.P-1 to P-33. In rebuttal, respondent No.1 was examined as RW.1 and 3 witnesses were examined as RWs.2 to 4 and marked 8 documents as Exs.R-1 to R-8.

8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, dismissed the claim petition filed by the appellant vide judgment dated 06.12.2018.

9. The claimant aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition filed this miscellaneous first appeal.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the insurance