NANU Vs. M. SUBAIR,KALLUVETTAMKUZHIYIL PUTHEN VEEDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1142 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Indira, wife of the 1st appellant and mother of appellants 2 to 4, in a motor accident which occurred on 08.05.2011, while she was cleaning Mukkada St.Sebastian's Church compound. At the place of accident, she was knocked down by a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-2/- 7256, owned by the 1st respondent, driven by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. In the accident, she sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries on the way to hospital. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the mini lorry by the 2nd respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads. The 3rd appellant Shylaja is unmarried and she is deaf and dumb, as evidenced Exts.A7 and A8.

(2.) Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement admitting the accident; however denying the negligence alleged against the 2 nd respondent driver. It was contended that the petition is not maintainable and that, they were not aware of the statement in the claim petition. It was pointed out that the vehicle was validly covered by an insurance policy. They contended that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive. The 3 rd respondent insurer filed written statement admitting policy coverage of the mini lorry involved in the accident; however, denying negligence alleged against the driver of that vehicle. The insurer contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. The insurer disputed the age, occupation, monthly income, etc. stated in the claim petition and also the liability to pay compensation.

(3.) Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 were marked and the 4th appellant was examined as PW1 on the side of the appellants/claimants. The respondents have not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.