NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. AMMINI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is submitted by the 3rd respondent/insurer in O.P. (MV).No.452 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The said claim petition was submitted by respondents 1 to 4 in this appeal seeking compensation for the death of one Vijayan due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 29/5/2007. The respondents 5 and 6 are the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

(2.) According to the claimants, the deceased hired a goods autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-12A/7278 for transporting hay to the house of the deceased. One trip of the hay was transported, and when they proceeded with the second trip, due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, the autorickshaw hit a stone near the road and capsized. The deceased was thrown off to the road and sustained severe injuries. Even though he was taken to Medical College Hospital, Calicut and was admitted there, due to the seriousness of his injuries, he died on 5/6/2007. The deceased was 45 years old at the time of the accident and was an agriculturist with a monthly income of Rs.3,750.00.

(3.) The claim petition was submitted by the claimants, who are the wife, father and the children of the deceased. The driver and owner of the vehicle, the 1st and 2nd respondent in the claim petition, filed a joint written statement contending that the accident occurred when the 1st respondent applied sudden break to save a man who unexpectedly ran across the road. It was also contended that the vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, the appellant herein, and the 1st respondent in the claim petition had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Therefore, if at all there is any liability the amount should be paid by the 3rd respondent in the claim petition, the appellant herein. The appellant/3rd respondent filed a written statement contending that the goods autorickshaw was carrying two passengers against the permit and in violation of the policy conditions, and hence, they were not liable to pay the compensation. In such circumstances, they sought exoneration from the liability.