KRISHNAKUMARI Vs. LEE KUMAR.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the petitioners 1, 2, 3 and 5 in O.P.(MV) No.1065 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha.

(2.) The case of the petitioners in the O.P.(MV) is briefly as follows : On 30.5.2004 at about 9.15 a.m., deceased Sasidharan Nair was travelling as a pillion rider in the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL -01/AC 1830, driven by the 8th respondent through Kollam - Thiruvananthapuram NH -47 and when they reached Seematti Mukku, Chathannoor, the motorcycle bearing Registration NO.KL -02/F -7646 ridden by the second respondent which was proceeding in front of the motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling, suddenly turned to the right side without showing any signal and hit the motorcycle by which the deceased was travelling. As a result, Sasidharan Nair fell down to the road. At that time, Car bearing No.KCV 2055 driven by the 5th respondent came through the road in a rash and negligent manner and it run over the body of Sasidharan Nair. He sustained very severe injuries and he died on the spot due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle by the second respondent and also due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the 5th respondent. The first respondent was the owner and the third respondent was the insurer of the motorcycle. The 4th respondent was the owner and the 6th respondent was the insurer of the car. The motorcycle in which deceased Sasidharan Nair was travelling was driven by the 8th respondent. The 7th respondent was the owner and the 9th respondent was the insurer of the said motorcycle. They were impleaded as formal parties in the Original Petition. If it is found that there was negligence on the part of the 8th respondent, it is prayed that respondents 7 to 9 also may be made liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. The first petitioner is the wife, second and third petitioners are the children, 4th petitioner is the father and the 5th petitioner is the mother of the deceased. The petitioners claimed Rs.10,00,000/ - as compensation.

(3.) During the pendency of the Original Petition, the 4th petitioner died and petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 were recorded as the legal heirs of the deceased 4th petitioner. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement contending that the accident was not due to the negligence of the second respondent. The third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the motor cycle and contended that the accident was not due to the negligence of the second respondent. Respondents 4 and 5 filed written statement contending that the accident was not due to the negligence of the 5th respondent. The 6th respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the car and contended that there was no negligence on the part of the 5th respondent. Respondents 7 and 8 remained ex parte. The 9th respondent filed written statement contending that the accident was not due to the negligence of the 8th respondent.