VASANTHA Vs. S.PUSHPARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in M.A.C.A.No.1513 of 2014 are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.185 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.968 of 2014 is the 3rd respondent insurer in that claim petition. Since common issues are raised, these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are referred to in this judgment, as they appear in M.A.C.A.No.1513 of 2014.

(2.) The appellants in M.A.C.A.No.1513 of 2014 are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.185 of 2010, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Gangadharan, husband of the 1st appellant, father of appellants 2 to 4 and son of the 5th appellant in a motor accident which occurred on 26.06.2009, while he was walking along the side of a public road. At the place of accident, he was knock down by a lorry bearing registration No.KA-01/A-6136, owned by the 1 st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent, and insured with the

(3.) rd respondent (the appellant in M.A.C.A. No.968 of 2014). In the accident, he 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 lorry by the 2nd respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- under various heads. 3. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent remained absent and he was set ex parte. The 2nd respondent did not file any written statement. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting the policy coverage of the lorry involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the driver of that vehicle. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition and it was contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive.