UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. C.MANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant - insurance company - was the 3rd respondent in O.P.(MV)No.75/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The respondents 1 to 5 in the appeal were the claimants and the respondents 6 to 8 in the appeal were the respondents 4, 1 and 2, respectively, before the Tribunal. The supplemental respondents 9 and 10 are the legal representatives of the deceased 5th respondent. Petitioners in the claim petition have filed C.O.No.130 of 2018 against the respondents. The appeal and cross objection are being jointly heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

(2.) The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, claiming compensation on account of the death of Sri.Krishnadas (deceased). It was their case that on 28.04.2000 while the deceased was driving an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-10D-7296 through Kunnamkulam - Changaramkulam road, when he reached Chiyannoorpadam in Malappuram District, a car bearing registration No. KL-8N-4100 (offending vehicle) driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed hit the autorickshaw. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on the spot. The accident occurred solely on account of the negligence of the 2nd respondent. The offending vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent and was insured with the 3rd respondent. The deceased was a driver by profession and earning a monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. Hence, the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.6,34,000/- from the respondents as compensation, which was limited to Rs.5,00,000/-.

(3.) Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement contending that the claim petition was not maintainable. According to them, the accident did not occur on account of the negligence of the 2 nd respondent, but on the part of the deceased himself. The amount of compensation claimed under the different heads were excessive.