Datasets:

vegeta

/

nlplegal

like 0

That, on 22.09.2015 at about 6.45 p.m, the

deceased Appanna in MVC.4650/2015 was riding the

Bajaj Discover motor cycle bearing Reg.No.

KA-02-HA-1154 along with his wife Smt. Swetha @

Bhagyamma, the deceased in MVC.4651/2015 on

5 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

Bangalore Tumkur Road (NH-4) towards Bangalore,

slowly, cautiously and carefully by observing the traffic

rules on extreme left side of the road, at that time a

BBMP Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-8658 driven by its

driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the

deceased motor cycle from behind. Due to impact the

deceased in MVC.4650/2015 and MVC.4651/2015 were

fell down from the motor cycle and the lorry ran over the

deceased wife Swetha who died on the spot, the deceased

in MVC.4650/2015 was sustained multiple injuries all

over the body.

3. It is submitted by petitioners that, after the

accident the post mortem of the deceased in

MVC.4651/2015 was conducted by the Nelamangala

Government Hospital and the dead body was handed

over to the petitioners. It is further submitted that,

immediately after the accident the deceased in

MVC.4650/2015 was shifted to M.S. Ramaiah Harsha

6 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

Hospital for first aid treatment. After first aid treatment,

the deceased was shifted to Blossom Hospital, Bangalore

for further treatment and admitted as an inpatient. In

spite of the best treatment given by the doctors, the

deceased was succumbed to the injuries on 04.10.2015.

The Post mortem was conducted by the Government

Hospital, Nelamangala and thereafter the dead body was

handed over to the petitioners, who performed the

funeral and obsequies by spending Rs.50,000/- each.

The petitioners have also spent more than Rs.50,000/-

towards medical expenses of the deceased in

MVC.4650/2015 and also spent Rs.50,000/- towards

transportation of the dead bodies.

4. It is submitted by the petitioners in

MVC.4650/15 that, at the time of accident the deceased

was hale and healthy and was working as a DTH

Installation Technician and Service Engineer at Bharath

Systems, Bangalore and was getting a monthly salary of

7 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

Rs.10,000/-. If the deceased was alive he would have

earn Rs.25,000/- per month in future and he has lost

bright future prospects.

5. It is submitted by the petitioners in

MVC.4651/2015 that, the deceased was working as a

Layer at Mareena Creations, T.Dasarahalli, Jalahalli

Cross, Bengaluru and was earning Rs.8,000/- per

month. If the deceased was alive she would have earn

Rs.20,000/- per month in future and she has lost bright

future prospects.

6. It is alleged by the petitioners that, the accident

occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of

the BBMP lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-8658 by its

driver. The jurisdictional Nelamangala Police have

registered a case in their crime No.355/2015 U/s 279,

337 and 304-A of IPC. The 1st respondent being the

owner and 2nd respondent being the insurer are jointly

8 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

and severally liable to pay the compensation to the

petitioners in both the cases.

7. In response to the notice, the respondent No.1

and 2 have appeared through their respective Counsels

before the Tribunal and they have filed the separate

detailed statement of objections.

8. The 1st respondent has commonly submitted in

the objection statement in both the cases that, the

petitions are not maintainable either in law or on facts.

The 1st respondent contended that, the claimants have

not made the driver of the Lorry as a party to this

proceedings. It is further contended that, the accident

had caused due to the negligent riding of the motor bike.

The rider of the motor bike had hit the lorry of the

respondent from behind, therefore there was no

negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The

compensation claimed by the petitioners in both cases

are highly exorbitant. The respondent No.1 has denied

9 SCCH-24

M.V.C.4650/2015 C/w 4651/2015

age, income and avocation of the deceased in both cases.

It is contended that, lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-

8658 is covered by the insurance policy issued by the 2nd

respondent and this respondent admits the validity and

policy number. As on the date of accident the driver of

the Lorry was having valid driving licence to drive the

said vehicle. For all these reasons prayed to dismiss

both the petitions.

9. The 2nd respondent has commonly submitted in

statement of objections in both cases that, it has not

admitted the issuance of insurance policy in respect of

the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-8658 and the liability

of this respondent if any is subject to the terms and

conditions of the insurance policy, valid and effective