SANIA DERRY Vs. JUSTIN GEORGE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 92 of 2009 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The respondents are the respondents therein. The appellant, a minor girl now aged 14 years instituted O.P.(MV) No. 92 of 2009 contending that on account of the rash and negligent driving of a motor bike bearing registration No. KL -7AL/6471 by the first respondent, it collided with the motor bike bearing registration No. KL -AX/9674 driven by her father on which she was riding pillion and as a result thereof, she fell on the road and sustained serious injuries. The first respondent is the driver, the second respondent is the owner and the third respondent is the insurer of the said motor bike. The claimant was admittedly a pillion rider on the motor bike bearing registration No. KL -7AX/9674 driven by her father the fourth respondent, owned by the fifth respondent and insured by the sixth respondent. Her elder sister Taniya Derry, who was then a minor girl aged 11 years was also riding on the same motor bike and in that accident she also sustained injuries. The appellant's sister had filed O.P.(MV) No. 93 of 2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by her.

(2.) The first respondent herein entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the allegation that he was driving the motor bike in a rash and negligent manner. He contended that the accident took place due to the carelessness on the part of the fourth respondent. The second respondent, the owner of the motor bike bearing registration KL -7AL/6471 did not enter appearance and he was set ex -parte in both the cases. The third respondent, the insurer of the motor bike bearing registration No. KL -7AL/6471 filed a written statement admitting the existence of a valid policy of insurance. It was contended that the first respondent who was driving the motor bike bearing registration No. KL -7AL/6471 did not possess a valid driving license. The appellant's father the fourth respondent and the owner of the motor bike which he was riding namely the fifth respondent did not enter appearance. The sixth respondent, the insurer of the motor bike which the appellant's father was riding entered appearance and filed a written statement admitting the fact that the motor bike bearing registration No. KL -7AX/9674 was covered by a valid policy of insurance issued by it. It however contended that it has no liability to compensate the claimant for the reason that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the first respondent who was riding the motor bike bearing registration No. KL -7AL/6471. The sixth respondent also contended that as two pillion riders were traveling in the motor bike, there is a breach of the policy conditions and therefore for that reason also, it is not liable to pay any amount as compensation.

(3.) Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal no oral evidence was adduced on both sides. However, the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 92 of 2009 produced and marked Exts. A1 to A8 and the claimants in O.P. (MV) No. 93 of 2009 produced and marked Exts. A9 to A12. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal considered the rival contentions and held that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the motor bike bearing registration No. KL7AL/6471 by the first respondent. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal thereafter proceeded to consider the claim for award of compensation under various heads and awarded the sum of Rs. 27,942/ - as compensation to the appellant claimant. By the very same award, the sum of Rs. 10,195/ - was awarded as compensation to the appellant's elder sister who was the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 93 of 2009. Though the Tribunal directed the third respondent insurer to deposit the amount awarded as compensation with interest and costs, on the ground that the first respondent, who was driving the motor bike bearing registration No. KL7AL/6471 did not possess a driving licence, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal permitted the third respondent herein, the insurer of the said motor bike to recover the compensation paid by it under the award from respondents 1 and 2.