K.J.DOMINIC Vs. SHAJI FRANCIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the claimant in O.P(MV)No.1160 of 2003 on the file of MACT, Muvattupuzha, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the damages sustained to his Maruthi Van bearing registration No.PY-01/J-9276, in a motor accident which occurred on 31.12.2001, involving a lorry bearing registration No.KL-6/A- 6899 driven by the first respondent, owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent. The fourth respondent is the driver of the appellant's vehicle and the 5th respondent is its insurer. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the first respondent driver, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.1,21,472/- as damages; Rs.91,472/- towards repair charges; and Rs.30,000/- towards depreciation caused to the vehicle due to the accident.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 4 remained absent and they were set exparte. Second respondent did not enter appearance. The third respondent insurer of the lorry and the 5 th respondent insurer of the Maruthi Van filed written statements. Third respondent insurer admitted insurance coverage of the lorry involved in the accident; however denied negligence alleged against the first respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruthi Van by the 4th respondent. The insurer pointed out that the appellant has to prove that he is the registered owner of the vehicle and contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.

(3.) The 5th respondent insurer of the Maruthi Van contended that they are not liable to pay any compensation as the police charge sheeted the first respondent driver of the lorry. Moreover, the policy of the Maruthi Van is an 'Act Only' policy which covers only third party claim.