Datasets:

vegeta

/

nlplegal

like 0

driving licence, Valid RC, Permit and FC. It is contended

that, the petitioners are put to strict proof of the

actionable negligence against the driver of the Lorry in

causing the accident. The respondent No.2 contended

10 SCCH-24

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

that, the rider of the motor cycle was solely responsible

for the alleged accident. It is further contended that, the

driver of the Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-8658 was

not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the

date of accident and the owner of the vehicle committed

the breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Hence

this respondent is not liable to pay the compensation to

the petitioners. This respondent specifically denied the

relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, age,

avocation, income of the deceased and called upon the

petitioners to prove the same with strict proof. The

compensation claimed by the petitioners are highly

excessive and exorbitant. For all these reasons, prayed to

dismiss both petitions with costs.

10. On the basis of the above pleadings and the

rival contentions of both the parties, the following issues

were framed :

11 SCCH-24

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

ISSUES in MVC No.4650/2015

1. Whether the petitioner proves that, the

accident that occurred on 22.09.2015

at about 6.45 p.m, near Mahimapura

Gate, on Bangalore-Tumkur Road,

NH-4, Bangalore, was caused due to

rash and negligent driving of the BBMP

Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-8658

by its driver and dashed against the

deceased Bajaj Discover Motor cycle

bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HA-1154, due to

the impact deceased succumbed to the

injuries at hospital and his wife died

on spot ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled

for the compensation ? If so, for what

amount and from whom ?

3. What order or award ?

ISSUES in MVC No.4651/2015

1. Whether the petitioner proves that, the

accident that occurred on 22.09.2015

at about 6.45 p.m, near Mahimapura

Gate, on Bangalore-Tumkur Road,

NH-4, Bangalore, was caused due to

rash and negligent driving of the BBMP

Lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-02-AD-8658

by its driver and dashed against the

deceased Bajaj Discover Motor cycle

bearing Reg.No.KA-02-HA-1154, due to

the impact deceased died on the spot

12 SCCH-24

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

and her husband succumbed to the

injuries at hospital ?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled

for the compensation ? If so, for what

amount and from whom ?

3. What order or award ?

11. In order to substantiate their cases, the

petitioner No.3 in MVC.4650/2015 being the party and

minor guardian of petitioner No.1 and 2 had been

examined as P.W.1, mean while he died and his LR i.e

petitioner No.3(a) impleaded and got herself examined as

P.W.2 and two witnesses have been examined as P.W.3

and P.W.4, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28. Thereafter, the

petitioners closed their side evidence.

12. In order to rebut the evidence so placed by the

petitioners, the respondents have not chosen to adduce

evidence.

13 SCCH-24

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

13. Heard the arguments. Perused the materials

placed on record.

14. My findings on all the above issues in both the

cases are as under :

MVC No.4650/2015

Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.

Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative.

The petitioner is entitled

for a total compensation

of Rs.12,09,800/-.

From the respondents

No.1 & 2.

Issue No.3 : As per final order.

MVC No.4651/2015

Issue No.1 : In the Affirmative.

Issue No.2 : Partly in the affirmative.

The petitioner is entitled

for a total compensation

of Rs.12,89,000/-.

From the respondents

No.1 and 2.

Issue No.3 : As per final order.

for the following :-

14 SCCH-24