ZACKARIA Vs. SHEENA SANGEETH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 30/10/2006, the bike in which the 1st respondent was travelling as a pillion rider was hit by an autorikshaw belonging to the appellant and driven by the husband of the 4th respondent in a rash and negligent manner. The 1st respondent suffered serious injuries. She was taken to Royal Hospital, Kunnamkulam, where she had undergone open reduction and internal fixation. Bone grafting operation was also done and she was undergoing treatment at the time when the claim petition was filed. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.96,660.00 as compensation. Finding that there was breach of policy conditions, the Tribunal permitted the 5th respondent insurer to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent and recover the same from the appellant. Aggrieved by the permission granted to the insurer to recover the amount, the appellant has filed this appeal.

(2.) Heard the counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

(3.) The main contention raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the husband of the 4th respondent Sri Rajan, who was the driver of the offending vehicle, had died much before the award was passed and hence the award is a nullity. It was pointed out that the fact that the 4th respondent's husband had died was brought to the notice of the Tribunal on 20/5/2016 by means of a memo, but the Tribunal proceeded to pass the award on 31/5/2016, finding that the deceased did not possess a valid license and hence there was violation of the policy conditions. The award shows that the deceased had been set ex parte. It is seen from the proceedings sheet that the Tribunal had noted that the 4th respondent's husband was no more but posted the case for hearing on 23/5/2016, even without ordering any steps to implead the legal representatives. It is thereafter that the award was passed on 31/5/2016. The counsel's contention hence is that the appeal has to be allowed and the award set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration after notice to the legal representatives of the deceased who have been impleaded in this appeal as respondents 2 to 4.