AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Patil
These app gals by the claimants and owner are directed against-the impugned common judgment and award dated 24th January 2007 passed in. MVC No. 787/2005 (in MFA No. 4865/2007 & MFA No. 10547/2008), and M.V.C. No. 780/2005 (in MFA No. 4864/2007 & MFA No. 11114/2007), by the file of the XVIII Addl. judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-4, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore, (SCCEI-4), (for short, ''Tribunal''). The first two appeals are filed by claimants seeking enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- awarded in favour of the first claimant as against his claim for Rs. 1,08,5001-, and Rs. 49,200/- awarded in. favour of the Second claimant as against. his Claim for Rs. 316,500/-, is inadequate. Whereas the third and fourth Appeals are filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, on the ground that the liability fastened on him is not just. and proper and hence the same is liable to be set aside. The occurrence of accident at about 8:00 P.M on 26-01-2005 near. Bhajana Mandir of Mattu, Padukere, and the resultant injuries sustained by the claimants are not in dispute.
On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the claimants filed their respective claim petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.
The said claim petitions had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 24th January 2007. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material aya0.able on file aid after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petitions in part, awarding a sum of Rs. 22.000/- and Rs. 249,200/- in favour of claimants respectively with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the dale of realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants are in appeal before this Court, seeking enhancement of compensation and the owner is before this Court seeking to set aside the liability fastened on him.
it is the case of the owner of the offending vehicle that the Tribunal is not justified in fastening the liability on him for the reason that as on the date of accident, the driver of the transport Thiele possessed a valid driving licence, that the offending vehicle was also insured with the insurer and that the same was also in force. Therefore, he submits that the liability is liable to be fastened on the insurer, by setting aside the liability fastened on him.
I have heard learned Counsel, appearing for the claimants, learned counsel appearing for insurer and learned counsel appearing for the owner, for considerable length of time.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusal. of the judgment and award passed by Tribunal including the original records placed before me, I am of the view that, the Tribunal, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has awarded just and reasonable compensation, having regard to the age, avocation, date of accident. nature of injuries, etc,. and hence, it does not call for interference. Further, so far as the liability fastened on the owner of the offending vehicle is concerned, I am of the view that the Tribunal is also right in fastening the liability on the owner of the Offending vehicle for the reason that, the charge sheet has been filed against. tile driver of the autorickshaw and that as on the date of accident, he did not possess a. valid driving licence, Further, RW2 - Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company has stated in his evidence that the badge licence of the driver cum owner was expired and not in force as on the- date-of accident. Further, it is relevant to note that the owner appeared before the Magistrate Court, admitted his. guilt and paid the fine also. These two clinching material would suffice for this Court to come to the conclusion that the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal, after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly fastened the liability on the owner. Having regard to the well settled law laid down by the Hon�ble Apex Court and this Court in catena of decisions, I am of the view that interference in the impugned well considered judgment is uncalled for nor the owner has made out any good ground for such interference. Hence, I uphold the finding of the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. For the foregoing reasons, the four appeals filed by the claimants and - the owner are liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits and accordingly, they are dismissed.
Registry is directed to transmit the amount deposited by the owner in M.F.A. No. 11114/2007 and M.F.A. No. 10547/2008 to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.
Office to draw award, accordingly.