JINI SEBASTIAN Vs. JOSEPH KURIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant. She was a minor on the date of the accident. She along with her mother was travelling on a motor-cycle which her father was riding at the time of accident. That accident took place on 27/1/85. She and her mother/pillion rider were thrown off the two wheeler. She was saved from the impact by her mother.But her mothersuffered grievous injuries. She succumbed to those injuries while she was undergoing treatment at the hospital on the very next day. Her father expired in 1992. Only in 1995 her guardian, her uncle, was advised that a claim for compensation can be lodged. Accordingly, in 1995 - on 2/2/95 to be precise, she through her guardian and next friend, her uncle, preferred this claim for compensation.THE claim for compensation was limited to Rs.4 lakhs.

(2.) THE vehicle belonged to the 1st respondent. Her deceased father, who was riding the motor-cycle at the relevant time, was arrayed as the 2nd respondent with information that he has expired. THE insurer was arrayed as the 3rd respondent.

(3.) THE Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, proceeded to pass the impugned order rejecting the claim for compensation. THE Tribunal appears to have rejected the claim for compensation on the ground that there is no tangible material to show that the claimant is the legal heir/ daughter of the deceased. THE Tribunal further appears to have felt that the claim by the claimant against her father is not justified and maintainable.THE Tribunal entered a definite finding that the policy does not cover liability in respect of the pillion rider. On these grounds the Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award rejecting/dismissing the claim of the claimant.