SUBRAMANIAN Vs. MOHANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is one filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the award dated 15.07.2014 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)No.326 of 2010. The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.326 of 2010, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Geetha, daughter of appellants 1 and 2 and mother of appellants 3 and 4, in a motor accident which occurred on 24.11.2009, while she was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-45/8798. At the place of accident, the scooter was hit by a car bearing 1 st registration No.KL-45/D-111, owned and driven by the respondent, and insured with the 2nd respondent. In the accident, she sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the date of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the 1 st respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads. The 3 rd respondent before the Tribunal is husband of the deceased, who obtained Ext.A15 award from the Lok Adalat, Thrissur, whereby the matrimonial disputes were settled on payment of the amount mentioned in the award. On payment of that amount, both parties have agreed to file a joint petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for divorce on mutual consent.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, the 1 st respondent owner-cum- driver of the car and the 3rd respondent, husband of the deceased remained absent and they were set ex parte. The 2 nd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage of the car involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 1st respondent driver. The insurer pointed out that, at the time of accident, the deceased was riding the scooter without wearing any protective headgear and that, she died due to head injury.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A15 were marked on the side of the claimants and the 3 rd appellant was examined as PW1. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.