SULOCHANA Vs. K.KANNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.698 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Subran, husband of 1st appellant, father of appellants 2 and 3 and son of appellants 4 and 5, in a motor accident which occurred on 27.03.2005, while he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-8/Z- 2976 as pillion rider. At the place of accident, the motorcycle happened to knock down a couple, who carelessly crossed the road. In the accident, the rider and pillion rider fell down with the motorcycle and they were run over by a tanker lorry bearing registration No.TN-37/D-8625 owned by the 1 st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent herein. Respondents 1 to 3 before the Tribunal are the legal heirs of the deceased rider and 8 th respondent before the Tribunal was the insurer of the motorcycle. In the accident, the rider and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries at the place of accident itself. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tanker lorry by the 6th respondent driver and the rider of the motorcycle on which the deceased was a pillion rider, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, the owner and driver of the tanker lorry remained absent and they were set ex parte. The legal heirs of the deceased rider of the motorcycle, filed written statement contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the couple who crossed road and the rider and pillion rider on the motorcycle happened to be run over by the lorry due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker lorry by its driver, which came through wrong side. They pointed out that insurance policy of the motorcycle is a comprehensive policy covering the risk of the pillion rider also. The insurer of the motorcycle filed written statement admitting the insurance policy of the said vehicle; however denying negligence alleged against its rider. They contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the tanker lorry.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, the claim petition was tried along with connected case. Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claimants. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents. Both sides have not chosen to adduce any oral evidence.