NAJEEB Vs. N.K. BABU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the injured who was the claimant in O.P. (M.V.). No. 278 of 1982 on he file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The first respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle KLH 2518 and the 2nd respondent is the driver of the said vehicle. The 3rd respondent is the insurance company who issued an insurance policy in respect of the said vehicle. In the original claim petition viz. O.P. (M.V.) No. 278/82, there were three other respondents, viz. the driver of the Kerala State Road Transport bus, KLX 3901, its owner, the General Manager, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation as respondents 4 and 5. There was yet another respondent, viz. the 6th respondent who was impleaded in the proceedings before the Tribunal as the person to whom the ownership of the vehicle KLH 2518 is alleged to have been, transferred.

(2.) ACCORDING to the claimant/appellant, he was a passenger in the stage carriage bus bearing registration no. 2518 of which the first respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent was the driver. He sustained injuries in an accident in the said bus while he was travelling. The bus collided with K.S.R.T.C. bus bearing registration No. KLX 3901 at about 6.00 P.M. on 20 -8 -1981. According to the claimant, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus KLH 2518 and therefore, the owner of the vehicle viz. the first respondent is responsible for payment of the compensation in respect of the injury sustained by him in the accident.

(3.) ON notice, the respondents contested the matter. According to the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the bus KLH 2518, he was not actually its owner or operator at the time of the accident. According to him, he parted with possession of the vehicle as early as on 28 -10 -1980 under an agreement with one Dasan and ultimately by subsequent transfers, the ownership of the said vehicle was vested in the 6th respondent in the claim petition. He, therefore, disputes his liability to pay any compensation to the injured person. According to the 2nd respondent driver, the incident had taken place not in the manner alleged by the claimant. The 3rd respondent insurance company had admitted that the vehicle was insured with them, but its liability is limited to an amount of Rs. 5,000/ - in case the driver of the vehicle was responsible for the accident. They have also produced the policy. In the written statement filed by the 4th and 5th respondent before the Tribunal, they contended that they are not responsible for the accident and consequent payment. According to them, the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle KLH 2518 in which the appellant was a passenger.