KUNJILA Vs. MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the petitioners in O.P.(MV).No.1006 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The said claim petition was submitted by the appellants under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation for the death of one Wilson due to the injuries sustained to him in a motor accident that occurred on 17/11/2003. According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the motorcycle ridden by him was hit against a telephone post, thereby sustaining injuries. Even though he was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries.

(2.) The said vehicle was owned by the 1st respondent, who is none other than the wife of the deceased. The claim petition was submitted by the appellants in such circumstances, who were the mother and children of the deceased. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement admitting the coverage of the policy over the said vehicle. However, they contended that the appellants are not entitled to compensation under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, as the same was not maintainable. It was contended that since the deceased himself was the tortfeasor, the claimants were not entitled to claim compensation.

(3.) The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A9 from the side of the appellants. The copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ext.B1 from the side of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claim petition was not maintainable under Sec. 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the light of the observations in Ningamma and another v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd [2009 ACJ 2020]. This appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the order of dismissal of the claim petition.