KRISHNAN SREEMATHY Vs. PADMANABHAN GANGADHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants in this case are the unfortunate legal representatives (widow and three minor children) of one deceased Sivadasan. He was employed as a lorry attender by the first respondent (very same person was arrayed as first and second respondents, one as owner and second as driver). He died during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives are impleaded as additional respondents 5 and 6. On 2881983, at about 12.15 p.m., owner of the goods vehicle bearing Registration No. KLQ. 6855 took the lorry with the intention of killing another person. But, it accidentally hit Sivadasan, who was standing in the road side of a petrol bunk. He was taken to the hospital, but on the way to the hospital, he died. It is stated that at the time of accident, he was aged 48 years and his monthly salary was Rs. 900 per month. The allegation in the application was that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver cum owner of the lorry.

(2.) The first respondent admitted the accident and stated that the lorry was insured by the 3rd respondent. He also contended that he was driving the vehicle very carefully and the accident occurred as the deceased carelessly crossed the road. The 3rd respondent insurance company filed a written statement stating that they are not liable to pay any compensation as the death occurred not due to the accident; it was an intentional murder, and therefore, the claim will not come within the purview of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was also submitted that in any event, they are not liable to indemnify first respondent.

(3.) On the facts of the case, it has come out in evidence that the deceased Sivadasan was standing on the western side of the M. C. road, close to a petrol bunk in Kilimanoor Junction at M.C. road, near to the place where lorry in which he was employed as driver was parked. He was a cleaner of lorry KLQ 6855. It was parked nearby. Owner of that lorry (first respondent) drove the lorry to kill a person in a rash manner; but, it accidentally hit the deceased Sivadasan which resulted in his death. He died on the way to the hospital. He was convicted by the Court of Sessions, Trivandrum in S. C. No. 85 of 1984 which was affirmed by the High Court. The first question to be considered is whether he died in an accident. Second question to be considered is whether legal representatives of the deceased can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act or under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Thirdly, whether the insurance company is liable to deposit the compensation, and if so, whether they are entitled to recover the same from the insured.