P.JANARDHANAN @ BABU Vs. P.K.KUNHIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Interference declined by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, dismissing the claim petition filed by the appellant/injured holding that the same is not maintainable under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act is under challenge in this appeal.

(2.) The appellant was riding his scooter bearing No.KL.11. 8636 on 10.02.1994 by 3.00 p.m. When he reached the place of occurrence, a pedestrian allegedly crossed the road abruptly. The appellant applied the brake and swerved the scooter, where upon he lost control and fell on the road sustaining serious injuries. This resulted in an alleged disability to an extent of 30% by virtue of eye -droop. The loss was sought to be compensated by filing claim petition against the owner of the vehicle and the insurer, who were shown as respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition filed under Section 163A of the Act as aforesaid.

(3.) Despite completion of service of notice, the first respondent/owner did not choose to contest the matter by filing any written statement. The respondent insurance company filed a detailed written statement disputing the liability on several grounds, including that the claim was not maintainable under Section 163A; that accident had occurred much prior to introduction of the said provision and further that it was barred by limitation, besides the challenge on quantum and such other aspects. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of Exts. A1 to A6 produced from the part of the claimant; besides Exts.X1 certificate of permanent disability issued from the Medical College Hospital, Calicut, which was marked as a court exhibit. The respondent Insurance Company produced Ext.X1 and marked Exts.B1 and B2, which are photocopies of the policy and that of the charge sheet. No oral evidence was adduced from either side.