KRISHNANUNNI Vs. R. BALASUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are connected and the appeals are filed challenging the same award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. Therefore, I am disposing these two appeals by a common judgment. (Hereinafter, the parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank in the Tribunal).

(2.) M.A.C.A. 461/09 is filed by the third respondent in O.P. (MV) No. 664/03 and M.A.C.A No. 3093/2008 was filed by the petitioner/claimant in the above O.P.(MV). M.A.C.A.No.461/2009 is filed by the Insurance Company mainly for the reason that, even though it is contended that the second respondent driver was not having a proper licence during the period of accident, that point is not considered properly by the Tribunal. The other appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation.

(3.) The short facts for disposing these appeals are like this: On 16.02.2003 at about 3 p.m., the petitioner claimant was travelling in a motor bike bearing Reg. No. KL.9/L.931 as pillion rider from the place Kannambara to the place Vadakkenchery. Then the Tata Sierra car bearing Reg. No.TN.09/D.2689 hit against the said motor bike when it reached near Karemkode junction and thereby the petitioner claimant sustained injury. He was removed to Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. According to the petitioner/claimant the accident happened due to the negligent driving of the car by the second respondent. The first respondent is the owner of the car and the third respondent is the insurer.