C.B.VIJAYA Vs. SIVARAMAN (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise from the award dtd. 3/3/2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, in OP(MV) No.278/2010. M.A.C.A. No.586/2015 is filed by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, challenging the finding of the tribunal, exonerating the insurance company and directing the appellant therein to deposit the entire amount of compensation. M.A.C.A. No.357/2017 is filed by the claimants in the claim petition seeking enhancement of compensation. For convenience, the parties in these appeals are referred to as per their respective ranks in the claim petition.

(2.) The claim petition was submitted by the petitioners, who are the appellants 1 and 2 in MACA No. 357/2017, seeking compensation for the death of their son due to the injuries sustained in a motor accident that occurred on 23/8/2009. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of the accident, and he was working as a driver with a monthly income of '8,000/-. The accident occurred when he was run over by a bus while walking through the National Highway at about 1.30 p.m. on 23/8/2009. At the relevant time, the vehicle was being driven by the 1st respondent, owned by the 2nd respondent and was insured by the 3rd respondent in the claim petition.

(3.) As compensation, the petitioners claimed '8,10,000/-. The 1st and 2nd respondents filed a written statement admitting the accident but disputed the negligence on their part. It was also contended by both of them that, at the relevant time, the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent, and therefore, if at all any liability is fixed, the same should be indemnified by the 3rd respondent. The 3rd respondent submitted a written statement admitting the policy issued to the said vehicle. However, a specific contention of violation of the terms and conditions of the policy was raised by them. According to them, the insurance policy was issued to the vehicle for its operation as a stage carriage as per the permit, but the same was used by the 2nd respondent for carrying a marriage party without any proper permit in this regard. According to the 3rd respondent insurance company, the policy in this case, was issued to ply the said vehicle as a stage carriage, whereas, at the relevant time, the same was being operated as a contract carriage and, therefore, there was a violation of policy conditions.