PHILIP Vs. SURENDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is the first respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.87 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam filed by the first respondent under S.110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (the 1939 Act). The facts leading to that petition are as follows: The first respondent Surendran was travelling in a bus KLO 3581 proceeding along the Kottayam-Kumily Road to the east When it was halted in the Vadavathoor Junction for disembarking some passengers, lorry KRE1893 belonging to the second respondent and driven by the appellant came from the opposite direction and dashed against the bus resulting in very serious injuries to the first respondent He was treated in the Medical College Hospital, and his right hand had to be amputated. He filed the original petition claiming a compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- for the injury caused to him, under various heads. He impleaded the third respondent herein namely the United India Insurance Company with the allegation that the lorry KRE 1893 had been insured with them. He also impleaded the owner of the bus, its driver and the National Insurance Company, with whom the bus was insured, as respondents 4 to 6 in the petition.

(2.) The appellant denied rashness or negligence on his part in driving the lorry KRE 1893. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The third respondent Insurance Company appeared and disclaimed liability for the whole or any portion of the claim with the contention that the lorry had not been insured with them in the name of the second respondent. We are not setting forth the contentions of respondents 4 to 6 as they have been exonerated and there is no claim surviving against them.

(3.) The Claims Tribunal held that the first respondent had sustained injuries in the accident as contended by him, and that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the appellant. He held the appellant, and respondents 2 and 3, (the owner of the lorry and the insurer), liable for payment of the amount of compensation which he fixed at Rs. 1,32,400/-. An award was therefore passed for payment of the said amount with interest at 12% per annum from February, 25,1987 till date of realisation, and proportionate costs from the appellant and respondents 2 and 3. Having done this the Tribunal proceeded to "order and direct" the third respondent, as the insurer of the offending vehicle, to deposit the amount, interest and costs awarded, within one month. The "other respondents" (whatever that meant) were exonerated. But in passing the award, the Tribunal did not specifically advert to the plea of the third respondent that the vehicle in question had not been insured with them in the name of the second respondent owner. The Tribunal observed merely that the third respondent was "also liable to pay the compensation", without any discussion whatsoever.