(1.) This appeal is filed by the third respondent, Insurance Company in O.P.(M.V.) No.88 of 2000 on the file of the M.A.C.T., North Paravoor.
(2.) O.P.(M.V.) No.88 of 2000 was filed by the petitioners 1 to 6 seeking compensation for the death of one Mr.Sidheek in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 3-9-1999 at about 8.30 A.M. Deceased Sidheek along with his brother-in-law, Aziz were standing in front of the Tea Shop of one Gireesh at Munambam junction on the right margin. At that time a bus bearing reg.no. KRK-7479 owned by the second respondent, driven by the first respondent came and hit the deceased and his brother-in-law. Both of them were thrown down on the road and sustained serious injuries. Immediately after the accident, they were taken to Government Hospital, North Paravoor and from there referred to Medicare Hospital, Kodungalloor. The deceased was referred to Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam. On the way at Panayikulam, Sidheek died. Petitioners 1 to 6 are the wife, children and parents of the deceased Sidheek. They claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation alleging the negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. Third respondent in that O.P.(M.V.) was the insurer of the bus.
(3.) Before the Claims Tribunal, respondent nos. 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The third respondent filed written statement admitting the policy of the bus and denying the negligence alleged against the driver of the bus. The other averments in the petition regarding age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and the quantum of compensation claimed were also disputed. The widow of the deceased was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to 5 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the 3rd respondent, the certified copy of the policy was marked as Ext.B1. The Claims Tribunal on considering the evidence found that the accident was due to the negligence of the first respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,14,500/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation from the respondents. The third respondent was directed to deposit the amount as the insurer. The third respondent, Insurance Company filed this appeal challenging the quantum of compensation awarded.