NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. ANNAKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second respondent in O.P.(M.A.C.) No.200 of 1983 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam an insurance company - is the appellant in this appeal. The petitioners (claimants 1 to 4) and respondents 1 and 3 before the Claims Tribunal arc the respondents in this appeal.-The claimants are the legal heirs of one Shri Kuruvilla, who died in a motor accident that took place at Pinnakkanad Junction on 3-10-1978 at 7.00 a.m. The claimants alleged that the accident and the resultant death of Kuruvilla occurred due to the negligence of the third respondent, driver of the bus KLK 7695, of which the first respondent was the owner and the second respondent the insurer. They claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the third respondent, who was an employee of the first respondent. The Claims Tribunal also found that Kuruvilla was not a passenger in the bus at the time of the accident and so, the liability of the insurer is not limited to the amount specified in S.95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act. An award was passed against respondents 1 to 3 in a sum of Rs.31,000/- with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of the application (23-5-1979) till realisation and costs. Since the liability of the insurer (second respondent) was not limited under S.95(2)(b) of the Act, the insurer was directed to deposit the entire amount of Rs.31,000/- with interest and costs. The second respondent before the Claims Tribunal (the insurer) has come up in appeal.

(2.) We heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. T.K.M. Unnithan, counsel for respondents 1 to 4 (claimants), Mr. C.S. Ananthakrishna Iyer, and counsel for respondents 5 and 6, Mr. T.I. Abdul Salam.

(3.) The accident occurred on 3-10-1978. The claim for compensation should have been filed before the Tribunal on or before 4-4-1979. It was filed only on 23-5-1979. There was a delay of one month and nineteen days in filing the application. The claimants filed I.A.No.200 of 1984 to condone the delay. The respondents did not file any counter to the said application. The plea of the claimants that the first petitioner was prevented from filing the application in time due to illness from 31-3-1979 to 17-4-79 stood uncontroverted. The other petitioners were held to be minors. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay under S.110-A(3) of the Act. The application claiming compensation was entertained.