VILASINI AND ORS. Vs. DON FEROSH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are additional claimants 2 to 5 in O.P. (MV)No.732 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, by one Shanmughan @ Sathyaseelan, the husband of the 1st appellant and father of appellants 2 to 4, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which occurred on 18.02.2001, while he was travelling as pillion rider on a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN-74/Z-7014, owned by the 4th respondent and ridden by the 5 th respondent. At the place of accident, the motorcycle was hit by a trucker bearing registration No.TN-74/B-7095, owned by the 1 st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, he sustained injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the trucker by the 2 nd respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under various heads. During the pendency of the claim petition, the original claimant died on 13.07.2001. His legal heirs filed an application to get themselves impleaded as additional claimants 2 to 5 and also to enhance the total compensation claimed as Rs.5,00,000/-, for death of the original claimant. That application was allowed by the Tribunal.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting insurance coverage of the trucker involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the 2 nd respondent driver. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle by the 5 th respondent rider. The motorcycle hit on the front side of the trekker, which was coming from the opposite direction. The rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid driving license and the motorcycle was not covered by a valid insurance policy. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, income, etc. stated in the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed is exorbitant.

(3.) After the amendment of the claim petition, the 3rd respondent insurer filed additional written statement contending that the original claimant died not due to the injuries sustained in the accident. After the accident, he was admitted in the hospital and discharged after completion of treatment. He was a chronic epilepsy patient. No post mortem was conducted because his death was a natural death.