SHABU P. Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the petitioner in OP(MV) No. 1168/2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The respondent in the appeal insurance company, was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status in the claim petition.

(2.) The concise facts in the claim petition, relevant for the determination in the appeal are that: on 18.06.2004, while the appellant was driving a Tata Sumo vehicle from Palakkad to Coimbatore, when he reached Pudusseri Temple, a lorry bearing registration No.KRK/6516 (offending vehicle) driven by the 2nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the vehicle of the appellant. The appellant sustained serious injuries including fractures. Two other persons lost their life in the accident. The appellant was treated at Government Hospital, Palakkad and then at the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. Thereafter, he was admitted at Palana Hospital, Palakkad for a period of 21 days. He had to undergo two surgeries. The appellant sufferred two fractures on his right leg. The appellant was a Driver by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs. 4,500/-. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The 4th respondent was the insurer of the vehicle driven by the appellant. The appellant contended that respondents 1 to 3 were jointly and severely liable to pay him compensation, which he quantified at Rs.5,00,000.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the proceedings. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement, interalia, contenting that the Driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid driving license, that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the appellant also and that the compensation claimed by the appellant was on the higher side. The 4th respondent filed a written statement contenting that there was no negligence on the part of the appellant and therefore the 4th respondent was not liable to pay any amount as compensation.