M.A.C.A. No. 1348 of 2009 (B). Case: Jessy and Ors. Vs A.V. Korath and Ors.. High Court of Kerala (India)
| Case Number | M.A.C.A. No. 1348 of 2009 (B) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: E.C. Poulose and Bobby Raphael C., Advs. |
| Judges | T. R. Ramachandran Nair and Anil K. Narendran, JJ. |
| Issue | Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 |
| Judgement Date | April 07, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Kerala (India) |
Judgment:
Anil K. Narendran, J.
-
The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV)No.2077 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, an application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the death of one Wilson, who died in a motor accident. The first appellant is the widow of the deceased, the second and third appellants are his children and the fourth appellant is the father of the deceased. On 26.10.2001, Mr. Wilson was riding his bike bearing No. KL-07/V-4924 from Manjapra to Angamaly through Manjapra-Angamaly public road, from east to west. When the bike reached Kidangoor, a mini lorry bearing registration No. KL-07/P-7714, driven by the first respondent, came from the opposite direction and hit the bike. Mr. Wilson fell down on the road and sustained injuries. After four days he succumbed to the injuries. The appellants contended that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry by the first respondent. At the time of accident, Mr. Wilson, who was aged 36 years, was working as a driver and earning a monthly income of ` 3,500/-. Claiming a total compensation of ` 5,89,000/- under various heads, the appellants filed O.P.(MV)No. 2077 of 2001 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, against the first respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of the mini lorry and the second respondent, who is the insurer of the said lorry.
-
The first respondent-driver remained ex parte. The second respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy of insurance of the mini lorry in question during the relevant time. They have also admitted that, at the time of accident the first respondent was driving the vehicle. But, they contended that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor bike by the deceased Wilson and that the compensation claimed under various heads is highly exorbitant and exaggerated.
-
On the side of the appellant Exts. A1 to A10 were marked and PWs.1 to 3 were examined. On the side of the respondents Ext. B1 was marked. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.
-
The Tribunal by award dated 30.9.2006 came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent-driver of the mini lorry. The Tribunal has also found that there is contributory negligence on the part of deceased Wilson and fixed the liability between the first respondent driver and deceased Wilson as 75:25. The Tribunal fixed the total compensation under various heads at ` 4,02,640/- and fixed the total compensation payable to the appellants at ` 3,02,000/-, as the liability of respondents 1 and 2 is limited to 75%.
-
The Tribunal found that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellants, together with 7% interest from the date of application till the date of realisation. The Tribunal held that, appellants 1 to 3, who are the widow and children of deceased Wilson, are entitled to 95% of the award amount in equal share and the fourth appellant, who is the father of the deceased, is entitled for 5% of the award amount. The second respondent-insurer was directed to produce separate cheques in the name of the appellants for their respective shares within a month from the date of award. On...
To continue reading
Request your trial