ULLAS.P.T Vs. KISHOREKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M.A.C.A.No.871 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.270 of 2007 and M.A.C.A.No.964 of 2012 is filed by the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.271 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam.

(2.) The common case of the petitioners in the Original Petitions (MV) is briefly as follows : On 18.12.2006 at about 9 p.m., while the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.271 of 2007 was travelling in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL -8/AH 8313 as pillion rider through Kanjani West Fort public road, another motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL -8/AK 5731 ridden by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against that motorcycle, as a result of which the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.271 of 2007, and the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.270 of 2007, who was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL -8/AK 5731 sustained injuries. In O.P.(MV) No.270 of 2007, respondents 1 to 3 are the rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL -8/AK 5731. The rider, owner and insurer of the other motorcycle are impleaded as respondents 4 to 6. In O.P.(MV) No.271 of 2007, the first respondent was the rider, second respondent was the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL -8/AK 5731. In O.P.(MV) No.270 of 2007, the petitioner claimed Rs.2,50,000/ - as compensation and the petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.271 of 2007 claimed Rs.1,50,000/ - as compensation.

(3.) In O.P.(MV) No.270 of 2007, respondents 1 and 6 filed written statement, admitting the policy of the motorcycles and denying the negligence of the riders of both motorcycles and contended that the compensation claimed is excessive. In O.P.(MV) No.271 of 2007, the third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the motorcycle and contended that the compensation claimed is excessive.