Motor vehicle accident compensation, being beneficial legislation, must rely on the preponderance of probabilities rather than strict evidence; pending appeals are entitled to have compensation calculated according to contemporary legal principles to ensure just recovery.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU)

1. The present appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the Judgment and Award dated 17.05.2016 in MVC No.846/2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge & AMACT, Kundapura (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Award”). By the Impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.33,08,445/- to the claimants along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit.

2. The challenge in the present appeal is by the appellants/claimants who are parents of the deceased. Notice to respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, to 9 is dispensed with by the order of this Court dated 05.12.2017. The appeal has been contested by the appellants/claimants and the learned counsel for the Respondent No.6/Insurance Company.

2.1 This Court by its order dated 08.07.2019 has condoned the delay of 141 days in filing the appeal, subject to there being no interest for the period of delay, in the event compensation is enhanced in this appeal.

3. The brief facts are that on 22.04.2013 at around 02.15 p.m. when the deceased Shankar Poojary was travelling as a passenger in Maruthi Omni Car bearing registration No.KA-20-B-4172, the Tipper Lorry bearing registration No.KA-20-C-3657 being driven in a high speed and rash and negligent manner collided with the Omni Car. As a result of the accident, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and was shifted to Chinmayi Hospital, Kundapura and thereafter to KMC Hospital, Manipal. The deceased succumbed to his injuries in the hospital on 30.05.2013.

3.1. A claim petition was filed by the parents of the deceased only. However, the wife and the children of the deceased were made as respondents. It was contended that the deceased was working in Kenya and earning approximately Rs.50,000/- per month. The petition was contested by the Respondent No.6/Insurance company.

3.2 Based on the pleadings between the parties, the following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:

“1. Whether the petitioners prove that the deceased Shankar Poojary had sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries in a road traffic accident alleged to have taken place on 22.04.2013 at about 2.00 p.m. on near Kattinamakki, Smt.Suguna Muroor Bus Stop, Haklady Village, Kundapura Taluk, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tippe Lorry bearing Reg. No.KA-20-C-3657?

2. Whether the Respondent No.3 proves that the accident has taken place due to contributory negligence of the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car Reg.No.KA-20-B-3657?

3.Whether the respondent No.3 proves that the petitioner is bad for mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties, i.e., owner and insurer of the Lorry bearing No.KA-20-C 3657?

4. Whether respondent No.6 proves that the driver of the Maruthi Omni Car Reg.No.KA-20-B-4172 had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident?

5.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what is the quantum? From whom?

6.What order or award?”

4. The mother of the deceased gave evidence as P.W.1 and exhibited the documents as Ex.P1 to P8 which included FIR with complaint (Ex.P1), Spot Mahazar (Ex.P2), Spot Sketch (Ex.P3), IMV Report (Ex.P4), Post Mortem Report (Ex.P5), Inquest Mahazar (Ex.P6), Charge Sheet (Ex.P7) and Accident Information Report (Ex.P8). The wife of the deceased gave evidence as R.W.1 and exhibited ten documents as Exs.R1 to R10 which included Salary Certificate of the deceased (Ex.R1), Passport (Ex.R2), Passbook of Bank of Baroda (Exs.R3 & R4), Acco