V R RAVEENDRAN Vs. M SAROJINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent No. 2 before the Tribunal who is the owner of a motor cycle involved in the accident is the appellant. His vehicle was involved in an accident. At the time of the accident, respondent No. 4 was riding the motor cycle and one Ramkumar, son of respondent No. 1 and the brother of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, was riding as pillion. In the accident respondent No. 4 and the said Ramkumar suffered injuries. Ramkumar succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Mother and brothers of Ramkumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimants') staked a claim for compensation against the respondent No. 4 (the rider), the appellant (the owner) and respondent No. 5 (the insurer). An amount of Rs. 2,60,000 was claimed as compensation. Binu (i.e., respondent No. 4), the alleged rider of the motor cycle, took up a contention that, not he, but the deceased was riding the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The appellant owner contended that the rider of the vehicle was at the relevant time riding the vehicle without his permission or authorisation. According to him, he is employed in the Railways. He had gone for his work on 12.4.1994 after entrusting the vehicle to the workshop of RW 3 for repairs. He had returned from work only on 14.4.1994. He then came to know that the accident had taken place on 13.4.1994. In short, he contended that the rider of the vehicle did not have his authority to ride the vehicle and hence he is not liable to compensate the claimants. The insurer admitted that there was a Comprehensive Policy issued in respect of the vehicle issued to the owner appellant at the relevant time. However, the insurer contended that it is not liable as the rider, respondent No. 1, at the relevant time did not have a valid driving licence. The insurer thus disputed the liability to satisfy the claim. There was, of course, dispute regarding the quantum of compensation payable also.

(2.) The claimant No. 1 examined herself as PW 1. Exhs. A1 to AS were produced. The only document relevant for our consideration is Exh. A6 as per which the police after investigation had filed final report indicting respondent No. 4 herein as the rider of the vehicle alleging that he was guilty of culpable rashness and negligence.

(3.) On the side of the respondents, RWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exhs. B1 to B8 were marked. Exhs. X1 to X2 (a) were also marked.