AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.S. Pachhapure, J.—Though the matters are posted in the list of admission, with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, they are taken up for final hearing and are being disposed of by this judgment.
The insurer has challenged its liability to pay the compensation on the basis of the finding on negligence rendered by the tribunal in the judgment and awards impugned in these appeals.
The facts reveal that on 31.05.2009 Smt. Padma Nandini, Sri. Chandrashekara Nandini, Sri. Nagaraj, Smt. Latha and others were travelling in the quails Car bearing registration No. KA-19/MD-8008 insured by the appellant. On the State highway No. 19 near B.G. Kere, a KSRTC bus bearing registration No. KA-36/F-763 was proceeding towards Ballary and at that time driver of the quails car drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and hit the bus. In the said accident, the driver of the quails car and inmates died and their legal representatives made a claim for compensation in MVC Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4/2009. All these claim petitions were clubbed and common evidence was led. The tribunal held that it was the driver of the quails car who was negligent in driving the same and therefore directed the appellant insurer to pay the entire compensation along with interest. Aggrieved by the finding on negligence and consequent compensation awarded, the present appeals are filed by the Insurance Company.
Heard learned counsel for both parties.
The learned counsel for appellant submits that there was head on collusion between two vehicles and the tribunal committed an error in holding that the driver of the quails car was exclusively responsible for the negligence in the accident. Therefore, he submits that the impugned judgment and awards may be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents support the impugned judgment and awards of the tribunal.
In support of the oral evidence, the claimants have produced copy of the FIR at Ex. P1, copy of the charge sheet at Ex. P2, certified copy of the spot mahazar at Ex. P3 and perusal of these documents would clearly reveal that the complaint of this incident was filed by the conductor of the bus attributing exclusive negligence on the part of the driver of the quails car.
Ex. P3 is the certified copy of spot mahazar which reveals the road and spot of the accident runs between the Bellary and Bangalore. The bus was proceeding towards Bellary. The spot of the accident shown in the spot mahazar is western edge of the tar road, as the bus was proceeding from south towards north and it has to be on the left side of the road. The road was 36 ft, in width. The quails car could have proceed safely if it is on proper portion of the tar road. The evidence discloses that the driver of the quails car deviated the vehicle and hit the bus which was coming from opposite portion. Though the collusion is head on collusion. The negligence is exclusively on the part of the driver of the quails car. This version finds place in the spot mahazar, the sketch and oral evidence of the parties. That apart, the criminal case is only against the driver of the quails car 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the tribunal was justified in holding that it was the driver of quails car who was negligent in driving his vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation and directed the insurer of the quails car i.e., the appellant herein to pay the same. There is no challenge so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned.
Therefore, the appeals fail and they are accordingly dismissed.
The amount in deposit be transferred to the tribunal.