Sabhahit, J. - (1.)This appeal by the owner and the insurer of the vehicle in question is directed against the judgment and award dated 17-1-1980 passed by the Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore City, in Miscellaneous (MVC) Case No. 241 of 1979, on his file, awarding compensation of Rupees 1,05,246-60 P., to the injured/claimant.
(2.)The petitioner Kumari B. N. Renuka is the daughter of Shri B. N. Nanjundappa, a Retired I. A. S. Officer in Bangalore. The petitioner/claimant was aged about 12 years in age at the time when she presented the petition. She was studying in the Vth Standard then. On 18-2-1979, the petitioner and her parents has been to the house of one Tallam Nanjunda Setty in order to attend 'Kanakabhisheka' ceremony. The said ceremony was performed in the house of the said Setty. The house of the said Setty is about six houses away from the house of the petitioner. They are situated in the Railway Parallel Line, Kumara Park West. After attending the ceremony, the petitioner and her parents left the house of the said Setty at about 11-30 A.M. on 18-2-1979. The petitioner was going ahead of her parents. A shamayana was put near the house of the said Setty. The petitioner was going from north to south by the tar road touching the footpath. A car bearing Registration No. MYQ 6769, belonging to respondent-1 in the petition was coming from the opposite direction at a terrific speed. It was initially coming in the centre of the road. It suddenly swerved towards her and dashed against her causing injuries to the petitioner. The car did not halt but sped away. The petitioner's father was a few feet behind the petitioner. He saw the accident, rushed to the spot, borrowed the car of the said Setty, put the injured petitioner into the car and took her to St. Martha's Hospital. As a result of the accident the petitioner sustained fracture of ilium fracture of both public rami and public symphysis was separated. According to the petitioner, the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the car in question by its driver. On these averments, the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs. 1, 87,390/- from the respondents.
(3.)Respondent-1 is the owner of the car, respondent-2 was the person who war driving the car in question at the relevant point of time and respondent-3 is the insurer. They resisted the claim. According to them, the accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving of the car in question by its driver. They denied having caused the accident by the car in question and the claimant was put to strict proof of the averments made by her in the petition. Alternatively, they contended that the accident occurred mainly due to the negligence of the petitioner in running across the road and dashing against the car in question herself on its hand side. They further averred that the driver of the car was compelled to plead guilty in Criminal Case No. 1090 of 1979 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate, II Court, Bangalore City, on 31-3-1979. The alternatively contended that the compensation claimed was excessive. By an interlocutory application, they further pleaded that the car numbers given were inconsistent.