VINU RAJ Vs. C V VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimants - a mother and a son, are the appellants. THEy are primarily aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded. THEy have a further grievance that the insurance company has not been made liable by the Tribunal. THE petitioners/appellants, though they belong to Kottayam, are now residing at Mangalore in connection with the employment of the son. THEy travelled down to Kottayam in a car of which the 1st respondent is said to be the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver and the 3rd respondent is the insurer. THE 1st respondent did not enter appearance. THE 2nd respondent was served. He did enter appearance. He did not raise any contentions. THE 3rd respondent insurance company contended that it was an `Act only' policy issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of the vehicle and that, at any rate, the said `Act only' policy did not cover liabilities in respect of the claimants who were travelling in the said vehicle.

(2.) PARTIES went to trial on these contentions. The Tribunal M.A.C.A. Nos. 1203 & 1204 of 2007 -: 2 :- took the view that the claimants - mother and son, are entitled for an amount of Rs.82,250/- and Rs.1,46,630/- respectively.

(3.) TECHNICALLY this contention of the 1st respondent does not appeal to us. The 1st respondent, who had not entered appearance before the Tribunal and had not raised the relevant contention, is now claiming exoneration in appeals preferred by the appellants/claimants. Notwithstanding such contumacious lapses on the part of the 1st respondent, we are satisfied that in the interests of justice the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the Tribunal deserves to be directed to dispose of the matter afresh. In coming to this conclusion, we feel that there has been a denial of justice notwithstanding the fact that the 1st M.A.C.A. Nos. 1203 & 1204 of 2007 -: 4 :- respondent was, to a great extent, responsible for such denial of justice to him. But it is pointed out that before the Tribunal also such document showing that he had ceased to be the owner with effect from 13/4/02 was sent by the 1st respondent through registered post.