THE BRANCH MANAGER THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SMT. INDRAMMA W/O LATE ALKURAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited has preferred this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 7th July 2015 made in MVC No. 345/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Holalkere (for short 'Tribunal'), fastening the liability on the insurer to compensate the claimants.

(2.) Respondents No. 1 to 4 herein filed a claim petition contending that on 26.6.2013, while the husband of 1st claimant and father of claimants No. 2 to 4 namely Alkurappa was crossing NH-4 road to approach the hotel near Ganesha Temple, Burujanaroppa village, Hiriyur Taluk, a Maruthi Alto car bearing registration No. KA-25/M-4312 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and regulations, dashed against the said Alkurappa. Due to the impact, he sustained grievous injuries to the vital parts of the body, immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chitradurga. Later, he was shifted to CG Hospital, Davanagere. However, he succumbed to the injuries three days after the accident i.e. on 29.6.2013 at about 4.30 p.m. In the claim petition, it was contended that they had spent more than Rs. 50,000/- towards treatment and funeral expenses. Prior to the accident, the deceased was doing agricultural work and earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. In view of the death of the deceased, the family has lost the bread earner and sought for compensation of Rs. 34,00 000/-.

(3.) In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the owner and the insurer-respondents No. 1 and 2 entered appearance. The 1st respondent filed written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also denied the rash and negligent driving of the offending Maruthi Car. Due to negligence on the part of the deceased, while he was crossing busy national highway at Hiriyur, without observing the on going vehicles, the accident had occurred and sought for dismissal of the claim petition as against the 1st respondent-owner.