AYYAPPAN PILLAI Vs. THOMAS.M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1095 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, a claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of their son Ashok, in a motor accident which occurred on 19.10.1995, while he was riding a scooter bearing registration No.KL-7/E-6734. At the place of accident, the scooter hit on a bicycle coming from the opposite direction and it overturned. In the accident, he sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the next day, while undergoing inpatient treatment at the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. Going by the averments in the claim petition, the scooter belonged to the 1st respondent, who purchased it from the

(2.) nd respondent, ten days before the accident. However, the insurance policy was transferred in his favour only five days after the accident. The deceased was riding the scooter with the consent of the 1st respondent owner. Alleging that the deceased died on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident involving scooter bearing registration No.KL-7/E-6734, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.7,17,000/- under various heads, which was limited to Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose of payment of Court Fee. 2. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent did not file any written statement. The 2nd respondent remained absent and he was set ex parte. The 3rd respondent insurer of the scooter filed written statement contending that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased. The insurer contended further that the claimants are not entitled to get compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The insured of the scooter was one Sasidharan Nair. There was no transfer of ownership in favour of the 2nd respondent. Neither the 1st respondent nor the 2nd respondent had shown any interest in transferring the ownership of the scooter. The deceased did not have a valid driving licence. The compensation claimed is highly excessive.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimants. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.