BALAKRISHNAN Vs. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.273 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of their son Ananthakrishnan, a 10 months old minor, in a motor accident which occurred on 06.11.2006, while he was travelling in a bus bearing registration No.KL- 4/K-3119 driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. At the place of accident, the bus collided with a lorry bearing registration No.TN-69/H-9050, which was coming from the opposite direction, driven by the 4th respondent, owned by the 5th respondent and insured with the 6th respondent. In the accident, Ananthakrishnan fell down on the platform and sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1 st respondent driver and also the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 4th respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- under various heads.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the bus, and also respondents 4 and 5, the driver and owner of the lorry, remained absent and they were set ex parte.

(3.) The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage of the bus involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1st respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 4th respondent driver. The insurer contended further that the compensation claimed is highly excessive. The 6th respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage of the lorry involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 4th respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by the 1st respondent driver, who alone was charge sheeted by the police. The insurer contended further that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.