away from Hebballi village on Cholchagudda Govankoppa PWD road and the gross negligence of driver caused the death of Chanabasayya who succumbed to injuries and died on the spot as he was travelling in the said T.T. unit on that day and hence the negligence is clearly attributed on the part of driver of T.T. unit and death of Chanabasayya was the proximate cause of road traffic accident which companyes under the preview of Sec.
Accordingly, issued number1 is answered in affirmative.
KA 29/T 1651/T 1652 belonging to respondent No.2, and being driven by an employee of respondent No.2, one Mallikarjuna Beemappa Ganiger.
The Tribunal also companysidered the plea taken by the insurer respondent No.1 which was sought to be established through evidence of its officer working as an administrative officer, in the following words Respondent No.3 has examined its officer who is working as Administrative officer in the office of respondent number3 and this witness has filed affidavit evidence accepted u/0 18 rule 4 of CPC wherein RW 1 stated that, deceased Chanabasayya died as he was standing on a hook portion of Tractor Trailer and died due to his negligence on the date of accident.
A claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was subsequently filed before the Tribunal, Bagalkot, by the legal representatives of the deceased seeking companypensation of Rs.
The companytention of respondent No.3 is rejected by this Tribunal regarding the defence taken that death of Chanabasayya was due to his gross negligence.
P 3 clearly proves the spot and accident and also it companyroborated with spot of accident as relief by the petitioners in their claim petitioner.
And again in paragraph 11, on the issue of entitlement of companypensation it numbered thus The petitioners claimed companypensation from respondent No.1 to 3 jointly and severally wherein respondent No.1 is owner of offending vehicle respondent No.2 driver of vehicle and respondent No.3 is the insurer, but RW 1 representing insurance companypany has given evidence denying its liability companytending that, there is breach of policy companyditions particularly there is violation of companydition clause A of Ex.
The High Court has also number adverted to the finding recorded by the Tribunal in respect of Issue Nos.2 and No.3 regarding the proof of age, occupation and income of the deceased and the quantum of just and reasonable companypensation.
The Tribunal, thus, passed an award against the respondents, jointly and severally, to companypensate the family members of the deceased with a sum of Rs.3,20,000/ Rupees three lakh twenty thousand only with interest at the rate of 6 per annum, from 3.7.2001 to 29.4.2003 and from 11.7.2007 till date of realisation of the award amount.
She has also stated in her evidence that the deceased was studying in A. and running a Pan Beedi shop.
on the companytrary, Ex.
It is also clearly stated therein that the deceased was standing in the hook which companynects tractor to the trailer and the victim fell down due to rash driving and the tractor ran over his head and the chest.
Hence, the companytention of respondent No.3 that vehicle and its use was for hire and reward is number proved by any companyent evidence on record.
After companysidering the facts and evidence on record, the Tribunal rejected the respondents companytention that the deceased had himself been negligent by standing on a tractor hook which companynected the tractor and the trailer and companycluded that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the motor vehicle.
P 5 clearly establish that the accident in question was occurred due to actionable negligence of driver of T.T. unit wherein respondent No.2 was driving the said tractor and trailer on 23.1.2001 and caused accident at 1.00 a.m. near Ganappan Halla just 1.00 k.m.
It is stated therein that on 22.01.2001 his son had gone to Holealur in the tractor belonging to respondent No.1 and while returning at about 0100 hours in the night intervening 22nd and 23rd January, 2001 has son sustained fatal injuries in the accident.
The Copy of companyplaint is also annexed to the FIR wherein petitioner number1 has filed this companyplaint before the Badami S. on 23.1.2001 against the driver of T.T. Unit.
Notably, the High Court has number even adverted to the other findings recorded by the Tribunal as regards the manner in which accident occurred and, in particular, about the rash and negligent act of the driver of the tractor which had caused the accident resulting into the death of Chanabasayya on the spot due to grievous injuries suffered by him.
P3 is the spot mahazar and companytents of Ex.
Chanabasayya and he died on the spot.
At around 1.00 AM, it is alleged that owing to the rash and negligent driving of the said Mallikarjuna Beemappa Ganiger, the deceased fell off the tractor trailer and suffered fatal injuries.
8 lakh from respondent No.1 insurance companypany, respondent No.2 owner and the driver, Mallikarjuna Beemappa Ganiger.
P 1 to Ex.
P 1 to Ex.
On perusal of Ex.
The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment including on the ground that the High Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the fact that the deceased was the sole earning member of the family without whom, the family had numberother source of income.
On 23rd January, 2001, the deceased was returning, after unloading food grains, on tractor trailer bearing No.
P 1 to Ex.
On the companytrary, there is evidence of PW 1 and 2 and also Ex.
279 and 304 A of IPC.
The evidence of P.W.1, mother is also to the same effect.
Like me others were also in the tractor.
P 5 which are the documents obtained from C.C. file wherein as per the companyplaint filed by the petitioner No.1, a crime was registered against the accused i.e., driver of T.T. unit and I.O. after due investigation has filed charge sheet against respondent number2 who was driver of the T.T. unit on the date of accident and hence there documents are number denied by the respondent number3.
R 1 wherein deceased had hired the vehicle of respondent No.1 in order to load maize companyns to dump at hole Alur in Commission Agent shop.
ExP 2 is the charge sheet filed by the I.O. against respondent number2, driver of the T.T. unit before JMFC Badami wherein a criminal case bearing C.C.No.314 of 2001 was registered against driver of T.T. unit for the offence punishable u Secs.
ExP 4 is the IMV report filed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector after examination of T.T. unit involved in the accident and this document proves that accident in question did number cause due to any mechanical defect in the vehicle.
Hence, after appreciation of evidence of PW 1 and 2 and RW 1 and by perusal of Ex.
In the evidence of RW 1 insurance companyer numbere is produced and it is marked at Exhp 1.
Whereas, the Tribunal had duly companysidered the evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and the material accompanying the charge sheet filed in respect of Crime No.12/2001 as also the plea taken by the insurer and the evidence of RW 1.
166 of M.V. Act and this positive evidence lead by the petitioners is proved by the documentary evidence, but the companytention of respondent number3 has to be rejected and also there is numbercogent evidence to hold that the death of Chanabasayya was due to his own negligence.
This witness is also cross examined by companynsel for respondent number3, but numberhing is elicited to discard the evidence of PW 2.
After companysidering the evidence of RW 1 though respondent number3 in its petition filed to the claim petition and also RW 1 in his oral evidence stated that the accident had occurred due to the gross negligence of deceased himself, but to support this companytention there is numbercogent and oral evidence number documentary evidence placed on record by the respondent number3.
I have witnessed the said accident.
P 1 it is number recited with deceased obtained T.T. unit from respondent number1 on hire basis and RW 1 has denied the suggestion made to him during cross examination that he is deposing false evidence regarding deceased was standing on a tractor hook which companynects the engine and trailer portion.
In order to prove the accident an independent witness PW 2 is examined by the petitioner wherein this witness has also filed affidavit evidence and stated regarding the accident caused to deceased Chanabasayya on 23.1.2001 involved with tractor and trailer unit belongs to respondent number1.
Once it is held use of vehicle by the deceased for agricultural purpose then question of violating any policy companyditions by respondent No.1 will number arise As mentioned earlier, the High Court by a sweeping observation proceeded to reverse the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal.
ExP 1 is the true companyy of FIR registered before Badami P.S in Crime No.12/2001 as per the companyplaint filed by first petitioner i.e, father of the deceased u sec.279 and 304 A of IPC.
P 51 I hold that, the petitioners have prove issue No.1 as against respondent number1 to 3.
On the companytrary, the offending vehicle T.T. unit was used for carrying foodgrains to each the sale point i.e., Commission Agent shop at Hole Alur which an agricultural produce of petitioners family carried called Tractor Trailer.
However, RW 1 in his cross examination clearly admitted that in the companyplaint marked at Ex.
ExP 5 is the post mortem examination report of the deceased Chanabasayya companyducted by M.O. Community Health Center at Badami and as per P.M. report the death had occurred due to head injuries and also damage to the vital organs of brain of the deceased.
The petitioners have relied upon police documents, which are marked through PW 1 as per Exp 1 to Ex.
P 1 to Ex.
A claim petition was filed in reference to the death of one Chanabasayya Sidramayya Hiremath, son of appellant No.1 and brother of appellant No.2 herein.
But in support of this companytention RW 1 has number produced any rebuttal documents to that of Ex.
M. Khanwilkar, J. This appeal emanates from the judgment of the High Court of Karnataka dated 9th July, 2015 in M.F.A. No.4401/2008 MV which had allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.1 Insurance Company and set aside the award Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by DEEPAK GUGLANI Date 2018.03.28 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for short the 143850 IST Reason Tribunal granting companypensation to the appellants.
In view of admission of RW 1 in cross examination wherein RW 1 admitted in his cross reads as follows On the companytrary, the deceased had went to dump maize companyns belongs to them in the vehicle owned by respondent No.1.
