Sri Vasanth Kumar vs M/s The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Sri Ramanna

N.K. Patil, J.—These three appeals by the respective claimants arise out of the common judgment and award dated 20th March 2006 in MVC No. 4427/2003, MVC No. 4428/2003 and MVC No. 4429/2003 on the file of the XVIII Addl. Judge, Member, MACT/-4, Court of Small Causes, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH No. 4) (''Tribunal'', for short). The Tribunal, by its common judgment and award has awarded compensation of Rs. 70,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 67,000/- respectively with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and fastened the liability on the 2nd respondent-owner of this offending vehicle. The appellants have presented these appeals contending that the condensation awarded is inadequate and requites enhancement, and that fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle instead of fastening the liability on the insurer is not sustainable.

The brief facts of the case are, the claimants have filed the claim petitions u/s 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation against the owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle for a sum of Rs. 4,25,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/- and Rs. 2,15, 000/- respectively, contending that on 22.4.2003 they met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No. KA-19-2686 and that they had engaged the Goods vehicle for transportation of mud pipes from Bagewala to Mandya and that they had sold the mud pipes at Mandya and while returning to Bagewala, they sustained injuries. It is the further case of the appellants that they had undergone treatment and spent reasonable amount towards conveyance, nourishing, food, attendant charges and medical expenses on account of the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident.

The said matter had come up for consideration before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, in turn, on careful evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence on file, allowed the claim petitions in part awarding compensation of Rs. 70,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 67,000/- respectively with interest at 8% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Not being satisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the appellants have felt necessitated to present these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation.

The principal submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Tribunal committed grave error much less material irregularity in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle instead of fastening the liability on the insurer as the insurance policy was very much in force as on the date of the accident and that the Insurance Company has collected extra premium also towards additional liability and therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award and that the tribunal has not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on file while fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, she submits that the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified.

Learned counsel appearing for the insurer inter-alia substantiated the impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal as just and proper and submitted that the Tribunal has passed the same after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file and interference by this Court is not called for.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-owner of the offending vehicle in MFA No. 7038/2006 contended that the Tribunal ought not have fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle because as on the date of the accident, the policy was very much in force and that there is no breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Though respondent No. 2 is served in the other two cases, he remained unrepresented.

After careful consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the impugned common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and on evaluation of the original records available on file, we do not find any error, much less material irregularity committed by the Tribunal nor we find miscarriage of justice in passing the impugned common judgment and award. The Tribunal has passed the impugned common judgment and award after appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 6 and documentary evidence of Exs.P1 to P20 and has assigned valid reasons and recorded a finding that PW-1 has stated in his evidence that he had no documents to show that he was working with 2nd claimant-Siddaraju and that he was carrying the mud pipes from Bagewala to Mandya; PW-2 has stated that he had not made any contract with the driver of the vehicle to transport the mud pipes and he had not obtained the invoice for transporting 600 mud pipes and he has not produced any documents to establish that the mud pipes belonged to him: PW-3 in his evidence has stated that he did not know the name of the employer and the name of the person to whom the mud pipes were sold and the claimants have not established that they were travelling along with the mud pipes and that they were coolies employed with the owner of the vehicle. It is the case of the claimants that they had sold the mud pipes at Mandya and while returning to Bagewala, they met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle and sustained injuries and undergone treatment, but in the cross-examination, it is specifically elicited chat they do not have any invoice for transporting the mud pipes from Bagewala to Mandya and the receipts for having sold the same at Mandya. PW-2 has categorically stated that he has lost the bill. He has not produced any authenticated document to show that he engaged the services of two coolies for loading and unloading of the goods in the Goods vehicle, PW-3 has categorically stated that he was not aware as to who were the persons engaged for loading and unloading of the mud pipes. From the admission of the claimants in their evidence, it is crystal clear that they have failed to establish that the insurer is liable to satisfy the award. Based on the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that no credible document is produced to establish that PW-2 engaged the services of two Coolies for loading and unloading purpose nor the claimants have produced any authenticated document to show that mud pipes had been sold at Mandya Taking all these relevant factors into consideration, we are of the view that the Tribunal is justified in fastening the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle. We do not find any error, much less material irregularity nor the appellants have made out any good ground as such to interfere with the well-founded and well-considered judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

All the three appeals filed by the appellants stand dismissed as devoid of merits.

Draw the award accordingly.