Vinodamma and Others vs Dayananda and Others

N.K. Patil, J—This appeal by the claimants is directed against the judgment and award dated 22nd September 2011, passed in MVC No. 103/2009, by the Senior Civil Judge, Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur, (for short, ''Tribunal''), for enhancement of compensation on the ground that, the compensation of Rs. 12,34,480/- awarded in favour of the claimants as against their claim for Rs. 50,00,000/-, is inadequate.

On account of the death of the deceased Thimmappa in the road traffic accident, the claimants, who are none other than the wife and four children filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, impleading the mother of the deceased as Respondent No. 3 in the claim petition, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 50.00 lakhs against the owner and Insurer of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 22nd September, 2011. The Tribunal, after considering the relevant material available on file and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, awarding compensation of a sum of Rs. 12,34,480/- with interest at 6% per annum, from the date of petition till the date of realization and directed the first respondent - owner of the offending vehicle to indemnify the award. Being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and also the direction issued to the Owner to indemnify the award, the claimants have filed this appeal, seeking reasonable compensation on account of the death of the deceased in the road traffic accident and also to set aside the direction issue to the Owner and fasten the said liability on the Insurer of the offending vehicle.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for appellants, Shri. R. Shashidhara and Shri. R. Rajagopalan, learned counsel appearing for second respondent. The first respondent/owner is served and un-represented.

Learned counsel appearing for appellants, Shri. R. Shashidhara, after going through the original records submitted that, due to inadvertence and communication gap between the claimants and the counsel who represented them before the Tribunal, they have not impleaded the driver nor examined the driver of the Autorickshaw bearing Registration No. KA-16/4785 in which the deceased and the first appellant/wife of deceased were said to have traveled on the ill-fated day, i.e. on 12-02-2009 and also the charge sheet witnesses. Further, he submitted that, the appellants may be permitted to implead the driver, examine him and the charge sheet witnesses and also the Doctor who treated the deceased at Bapuji Hospital, Davangere, as the deceased was treated at various Hospitals before he succumbed to the injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be set aside and the matter may be remanded back to the Tribunal, reserving liberty to the appellants to file necessary application, for adducing additional oral and documentary evidence by impleading the driver of the Autorickshaw in which the deceased and his wife were said to be traveling and all the contentions urged in the memorandum of appeal be left open.

In reply, learned counsel appearing for Respondent 2/Insurer did not dispute the fact that neither the driver of the Autorickshaw is made a party to the proceedings nor the said Driver and also the charge sheet witnesses are examined, who are actually the best persons to speak about the occurrence of accident. Therefore, he also fairly submitted that the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal may be set aside and the matter be remanded back to Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, as stated supra, is placed on record.

After careful consideration of the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal and the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm opinion that the matter requires fresh consideration by the Tribunal.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, it would suffice for this Court if appropriate direction is issued to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter and dispose of the same, on top priority basis, to meet the ends of justice and to safeguard the interest of the parties and also having regard to the fact that the accident is of the year 2009 and dependents are none other than the wife, four children and mother of the deceased.

In the light of the discussion made above, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed.

The impugned judgment and award dated 22nd September 2011, passed in MVC No. 103/2009, by the Senior Civil Judge, Member, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hiriyur, is hereby set aside;

The matter stands remanded back to Tribunal for reconsideration of the matter afresh and to pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, personally or through their counsel and dispose of the same, as expeditiously as possible, not later than six months from the date of appearance of parties;

Without notice, the claimants, respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 2/Insurer are directed to appear before the jurisdictional Tribunal on 26-09-2015, at 11:00 A.M. personally or through their counsel and collect further dates of hearing.

Further, since the first respondent/owner, on whom the liability is saddled, is served and un-represented before this Court in this proceeding, Tribunal is directed issue notice to Respondent No. 1 and thereafter proceed further in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.

Parties are permitted to file necessary application/s, for adducing additional evidence, oral/documentary, to substantiate their respective cases within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

In case such application/s is/are filed by the learned counsel for the parties, within the time stipulated above, the Tribunal is directed to receive the same and proceed further and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of the direction given by this Court, as above;

Registry is directed to return the entire original records, if any, received to the jurisdictional Tribunal, forthwith.

All the contentions urged by all the parties are left open.